Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:21, 30 December 2009

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page — it will be on my watchlist anyway, so I will see your response If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page — please let me know if you need a talkback to let you know that I've answered. This will ensure that conversations remain together! Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1: Pre-Jun 2009 Archive 2: Jun 2009 — Sep 2009 Archive 3: Sep 2009 — Nov 2009 Archive 4: Nov 2009 — Dec 2009 Archive 5: Dec 2009 — Archive 6: Archive 7: Archive 8: Archive 9: Archive 10:

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

RfA thankspam

Hello, Phantomsteve! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Happy holidays!

I'll second that. The same to you and yours! – ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the season!

May this season bring you joy and cheer Steve! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

Hiey Steve, thanks for taking the time to review me, I appreciate the depth you put into it. Happy holidays! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 21 December 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

editor review (MWOAP)

Hey, thanks for the review. I am on this late still, I just gave 2100hrs to be an estimate. I was wondering how you intended for me to help in WP:AN/WP:ANI/WP:RFA edits. I don't get that. The unspecified amount of time is only till about the weekend, I'm just not sure what day I am going to get back. Anyway, what do you think is a good time to start thinking about RfA, appox. like how many months? Again thanks. Replies after I get back. --MWOAP (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not a long-term time away! With AN and ANI, look at the conversations going on there. If you feel that you have some insight or advice to add, do so. Despite their title, neither of them is purely for admin use! With regards to RfA, add your !vote in as many as possible — this has three benefits in my opinion: firstly, it gives you a chance to show that you have an understanding of what is expected of an admin — your !vote will show how well you can explain your opinion; secondly, your name will be noticed, so if you go for RfA then other editors will not think "who the hell is this, never seen them before"!; finally, you will see the kinds of things that people are looking for in an admin through the supports and opposes (and neutrals) of other RfAs — and that will help you to know if you really want to go through it yourself.

An RfA can be very emotional — especially if it does not go well! I've known a couple of editors who have either gone away for a long time, or (as of now) permanently left Misplaced Pages, following an unsuccessful RfA. I'd advise you to re-read the various guides to adminship (there are links on the RfA page, so I won't link to them here!) and maybe consider it in a few more months — you might like to get another editor review done at that time, before you submit an RfA, and see how it's going — in which case, specifically state at that ER that you are considering running for adminship, and that you would like a review based on that fact.

Feel free to contact me again for any advice (not just about RfAs!). Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Misplaced Pages:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 05:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas wishes

Have a great holiday yourself. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisting TfD discussions

Hi! I noticed that you added {{relist}} to a number of discussions here and here, but it does not appear that you completed the relisting by re-opening the discussion on today's daily log page. I don't know if you are saving to a text editor and waiting to relist them all at once, but I wanted to be sure that you were aware of the second step to relisting.

Also, a few of the discussions (e.g., Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 16#Template:Always Sunny) do not appear to need relisting... Although only one other editor has commented, most deletion discussion processed do not require a quorum in order for a discussion to be closed. –BLACK FALCON 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! They are my first re-listings (as you probably guessed, without even having to look at my contribs!). I wasn't aware of the 2nd step - I just assumed that it would happen automatically! I'll sort those out now.

With regard to the "only one editor has commented", I guess I was going by AfDs and MfDs where one !vote would not generally be regarded as a concensus! I'll bear it in mind.

Once again, thanks for letting me know: I'll leave a new message here when I have relisted them in today's log pages, and would be grateful if you would check that I've done it correctly this time! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

All the debates which had at least one !vote I removed the "relist" for. The other ones I have copied to today's Log. If I have not done anything correctly, I'd appreciate it if you would let me know (I also need to look at cfds etc) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks good. I closed the old TfDs in order to direct any future comments to the relisted discussions.

Also, you're right about AfD and MfD, where participation by at least a few editors (3-4 or more, including the nominator) is generally a prerequisite to deletion. For pages that serve a mostly technical function (templates, categories, and redirects) or that have clearly-defined criteria for deletion (files), however, a nomination that is supported by even one editor is usually sufficient to close the discussion. In some circumstances (primarily for files and redirects), simply being uncontested can be enough to delete.

Happy editing (and please feel free to contact me if there's anything with which you think I could help)! Cheers, –BLACK FALCON 22:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisting discussions

I noticed you relisted some discussions on Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 16 for the second time (that is a third week). That is a little unusual. It may be better to close the discussions as no consensus in such a case. This is my personal opinion, I do not know if there is any guidelines about this, but I wouldn't mind discussing it with others on Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Relisting discussions imposes a maximum of two relistings, so Phantomsteve's edits are within the limit. The policy does indicate that relisting "should not be a substitute for a no-consensus closure", but applies this principle to discussions involving substantial debate. –BLACK FALCON 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply. I shall await Phantomsteve's reaction as well, to see whether that was indeed his reasoning. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick response... Thanks for contacting me, Debresser (and for replying, Black Falcon!) Here is why I thought each of the relisted items needed relisting:

1. Category:Misplaced Pages images by quality: 2nd relisting: I relisted this for two reasons: firstly, the previous week, an admin (Od Mishehu) has relisted it to generate more consensus, and there had been no further comments; secondly with the nomination there is 1 delete and 1 keep - so I thought as further week's discussion wouldn't harm. If there is no further comment during the next week, the closing admin can decide what to do!
2. IPFW athletics categories: I relisted this as there were 2 renames (including nominator) and 1 oppose -I felt that further discussion would be useful - if there had been no opposes (or at least one more rename with no further opposes), I would not have relisted. When I read the oppose, I felt that it was something that could benefit with input from more editors.

For what it's worth, although I feel that the relistings are justified, I'd have no objections if Black Falcon (or another admin) choose to over-ride my re-listing and close them appropriately. As Black Falcon says, the "do not use instead of a no-consensus closure" clause in the relisting guidelines refers to debates with substantial - in these cases, they could have been closed as no-consensus for the "images" category and as a "rename" for the athletics.

I trust this explains my rationale! May I wish you a peaceful, relaxing and enjoyable holiday! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I for one am not an admin, and not in the habit of closing disucssion, except on rare occassions, so we'll see if this second relisting brings new angles of view to the old questions. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

LouriePieterse is wishing you Happy Christmas! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Yuletide, Litha, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the hugs & cheer by adding {{subst:User:Deliriousandlost/happy christmas}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas!

☯ happy christmas Phantomsteve ☯

delirious & lost ☯ is wishing you Happy Christmas! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Yuletide,Litha,Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, Lenaia,Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the hugs & cheer by adding {{subst:User:Deliriousandlost/happy christmas}} to your friends' talk pages.

delirious ☯ 23:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ryulong and treasurytag vandalizing pages on the discussion

Steve you can now see that both ryulong and treasurtytag have vandalized the page NUMEROUS times and then tried to cover it up. They have also sent to other mods that I did it. I have reported this. If I get banned for this there will be hell to pay and I guarantee ryulong and treasurytag will not be on this site anymore. Now steve they have vandalized numerous times the diffs I have posted against Coffee. I repeat, they have vandailized numerous times diffs I posted against Coffee. They then reported to another mod that I did it and they have deleted this off the history SEVERAL times. I already told an admin about it. You better do your job or I will raise serious hell over this and admin WILL be removed.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• I was surprised that you left me a message here, as you told me not to post on your talk page!

I have responded on your talk page - but in short, there is no way in which those two could have done anything to the history of the page - even if oversighted, this would show as a struck-out entry (e.g. 20:56, 25 December 2009) which does not show on the history - and neither of those two users (Ryulong and TreasuryTag) have either admin or oversight permissions. I have also advised you (once your block is up) to let this drop and just carry on with the good editing of articles you have done. Incidently, I am not an admin. In future, if you want to see what user rights an editor has (such as admin), go to this page and just put in the user's name in the "User" box, and click on Go. The various types are:

• autoconfirmed: account has existed for at least 4 days and has at least 10 edits (with this, the account can move pages, edit semiprotected pages, and upload files)
• confirmed: same as autoconfirmed, but added to a user's account by an admin when the user has less than 10 edits or has existed for less than 4 days
• admin: an administrator
• bureaucrat: a bureaucrat - they can alter an editor's account to admin status (or bureaucrat status) following a successful RfA/RfB
• steward: a steward - users with complete access to the wiki interface on all Wikimedia wikis, including the ability to change any and all user rights and groups. They are tasked with technical implementation of community consensus, dealing with emergencies, and intervening against crosswiki vandalism
• rollback: can use the rollback function to revert vandalism
• ipblock-exempt: not affected by autoblocks and blocks of IP addresses and ranges that aren't made with the "anonymous users only" setting
• accountcreator: can create accounts for other users without restriction
• oversight: can oversight - they can permanently hide revisions of pages from all users
• checkuser: can check users - are able to view a list of all IP addresses used by a user account to edit the English Misplaced Pages, a list of all edits made by an IP, or all user accounts that have used an IP address.

There are a couple of other rights (edit filter manager, autoreviewer), but the above ones are the main ones you will see.

I would like to add that I have also done nothing wrong (apart from disagreeing with you, apparently), so if you feel that I have, then you are welcome to 'report' me - but please make sure that you provide diffs showing what I have done 'wrong' - however once your block has expired, I am willing to let this be all in the past. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Using File:Symbol support vote.svg and similar in RfX discussions

Hi there. Would you mind stopping to use , etc. when commenting in an RfX? The community has long ago decided against such images in discussions (per Voting is evil and see related TFD at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/June_2005#Template:Support_and_Template:Object_and_Template:Oppose) because they are increase page load times, make discussions seem like a vote, may distract from the actual comment itself and are generally adding nothing to the page except more text and a nice looking image that no one really needs. Unless you think your comments need to stand out amongst others, there is no reason to make them in such a way. Regards SoWhy 16:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, SoWhy! I was not aware of those discussions, and wasn't trying to make my comments stand out per se.

(puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So let it be written. So let it be done." -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: In that case, shouldn't the tally counts not be shown at the top of Rfx? Showing them at the end, when the result is decided would be appropriate, but surely they shouldn't be there during the duration of the discussion? xfDs don't have them. Also, surely SoxBot shouldn't report the numbers either? Is there a reason why they are allowed? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's an age old discussion. Logically, you are correct but somehow they have always been allowed to have a rough indication how the RFX is going, since RfX discussions, unlike deletion ones, have rough fail/pass percentage (e.g. <70% is usually fail and >80% is usually pass in an RFA). If you have a lot of time, you can check the WT:RFA archives for past discussions of that topic but it's probably sufficient to say that this is an issue where the community has decided that some vote counting is okay but not too much. Regards SoWhy 17:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying it! I wasn't being picky or anything - I was just genuinely puzzled! As for the symbols, I will no longer use them! Enjoy the rest of the holidays (I'm assuming you aren't just Misplaced Pages-ing! - I'm sneaking the odd five minutes here and there to keep abreast of what's happening, but not really doing much on WP). Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for that. We're very proud and happy for reaching this number. Greetings from Bonn --Sir James D (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome - it's a momentous figure to reach! Continue the excellent work -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Dear Phantomsteve, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).

Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! HJMitchell You rang? 17:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Julian's RfB / discussion deletion scramble

Wanted to thank you for finishing the sorting and making sure the thing was in proper form, and I'll thank TreasuryTag as well for catching it orignally. I'm going to AGF on it too since I've always seen MF as obviously knowledgeable on discussion rules there's no reason at all to think they removed my comment in pure spite. I consider mine a reasonable comment on my part since the !vote given is a very IAR-style reason to oppose that may well have never previously been used at that high a level of discussion and I wanted to express my respect for the !vote compared to my original confusion. If inquiring about IAR-style opposes in a tight discussion is a problem, I'd rather MF have taken it up with me. No end harm done, and again my thanks.

...Being RCP-style reverted at an RfB discussion gave me my laugh for the day, at least. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)