From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
- Response: [1]
- Hrm, thanks for the suggestion. I sent it to any talk page linked from the adopter's profile page. Perhaps one way to target them more narrowly would be to move inactive adopters to a different page. I'll consider doing that if I ever use the same targeting method for a message of this type. Best, xenocidic (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Oi!
Yo man. Just on holiday. Wanted to holler and say thanks for adopting me. Is there any way you can help me do some research? I'm having a really tough time finding primary sources for some articles. --InvisibleDiplomat666 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly could, but today is not a good day for me as I have a deadline at work. Drop me a note of what you need and I'll try to look at it this week. In the meantime, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Free online resources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. Bovlb (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Favour
Could I ask a favour, to tie up a few loose ends? Could you review the block of User:כתר and leave a note on their talk page whatever you decide? See User talk:כתר. I'm not happy about Moreschi's "Adieu", the lack of response from the unblock mailing list, the lack of checkuser evidence or even any attempt at such, the demand from Future Perfect for disclosure of previous editing (would be difficult if there wasn't any, and is intrusive in any case). Despite this, ktr was engaging reasonably with Future Perfect, but then the conversation fizzled out. If you could just follow up and explain or talk with ktr and see what you think, I'd be grateful. Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll review it later this day. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've commented on various things (and sent you an e-mail). I also talked to ktr about the personal attacks, and ktr has apologised for those. I've re-contacted Future Perfect and Moreschi. Would you now consider unblocking for time served? As I said in the e-mail, I'll be away the rest of the weekend, so I'll leave this for you to deal with if you are around later. Carcharoth (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Moreschi has replied here, and has indicated he won't stand in the way of an unblock. I think we are very close to finishing this off. I considered unblocking, but as you said you were considering unblocking depending on time served, I thought I'd leave it up to you. Could you let me know what you decide? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you (and Carcharoth) for following up on my request. Do you have any thoughts on how I could have handled the original situation more effectively or expeditiously? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help Bovlb. I think creating a SSP report or filing a CU request would have been the right and most appropriate thing we could do. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, yes. Unfortunately I didn't feel that I had either a basis or the belief required to file at SSP or CU. And I was unsuccessful in persuading the blocking admin to do it. Maybe I could just have filed an "anti-SSP report". :) Bovlb (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fayssal. Thanks for dealing with this. I appreciate you doing this before or just after starting a wikibreak. Bovlb's idea of an anti-SSP report is not such a bad idea. It would be just a normal SSP report, but would in fact report that an admin had blocked for "obvious" sockpuppetry without an SSP or CU case, would contend that it was in fact not so "obvious" as it seems, and would ask others to review it. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Carcharoth. I appreciate good ideas but we have the AN and ANI. Like this case, all other cases can be sorted out via those venues. This is just my opinion but it would be great to hear about other people's opinion. We have talked about a non-conformist RfC but this point can still be discussed at the village pump or the SSP talk page itself. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
BLP
It turns out that this was a bit too complicated to untangle in one spectacular bound. :-P I think I was somewhat foolish and I let things go out of control. At any rate, I'm now just going to go really slow, a user at a time. I've started discussing with User:ArnoldReinhold, and am trying to get him to at least not be entirely dismissive. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good luck with that. As I said, I came to that page (and Governance Reform) with a default position somewhat in disagreement with yours, but I found your arguments compelling enough to make me reconsider. The key point for me on BLP/3RR was that you were debating with people who were prepared to make very bold claims, but seemed unprepared to back them up. I note that no-one has made the "by fiat" claim since 2008-05-12 when I asked for evidence, but it seems to have morphed into a more subtle "prescriptive by consensus" claim. Thanks for making me think about things. Bovlb (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Voting
Hey I was just wondering how to start a talk page vote similar to this one: [2]. Does one just begin a vote by stating so on a talk page or is there a certain template for it? Thanks! --DerRichter (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like you want to start a straw poll. I think you can just go for it, but I have a few caveats: polling is not always the best way to gauge consensus, so you should certainly have raised the issue beforehand; depending on the topic area and the type of issue, there are various places you ought to advertise the poll; depending on the type of issue, there may already be an established process or noticeboard for making that type of decision; and most importantly, unless things are really clearcut, you ought to have some discussion of the polling questions before voting opens lest you introduce an unconscious bias. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
