User talk:Epbr123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is currently being considered for adminship. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Epbr123 2.

Contents

[edit] Congratulations!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27301926@N02/2548976366/sizes/o/ Oh yeah!! Keep up the good work! Thingg⊕⊗ 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Te he. It's a shame it was deleted really. I'd like my own article. Epbr123 (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice! I was reverting vandalism and found my username a few times in articles earlier today, where it said "Gary King is an X" basically, or "GK is an X". Gary King is already taken, so I guess the same thing won't be happening to me any time soon :p Gary King (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Luck

Best of luck with your RfA; looking good so far :) ——Ryan | t • c 10:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late, I didn't check my RFA chart for some time. Would you mind if I did a late co-nom? bibliomaniac15 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I'd be delighted. Many thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
May I pile-on the co-nom? It will look weird if I didn't do co-nom this time when you have improved a lot since 3 months ago. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

Best of luck for your RFA -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International vandalism

Dear "colleague",

I came across User talk:78.13.246.24, where you posted a final warning. Just to let you know: this is a cross-wiki vandal who is emptying articles on Wikipedia throughout the world. Just check Special:Contributions/78.13.246.24 and compare it to e.g. nl:Speciaal:Bijdragen/78.13.246.24...

On Dutch Wikipedia I blocked this vandal for one day now, but a cross-wiki block wouldn't be such a bad idea if you ask me. Anyway, feel free to block this IP now ;)

Kind regards,

Erik1980 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC) (sysop on Dutch Wikipedia)


[edit] Aftoater

Hello Epbr123, do you recall where Aftoater came from? I don't see it at the stated coordinates and there doesn't seem to be anything about it on Google books, which is rather worrying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dashes

Hi Epbr123. I've have been redirected here by SandyGeorgia. Could you give the article Emmy Noether a look ragarding dashes (or any other style and prose problem)? Cheers, Randomblue (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Dates in refs question

Hi. A few weeks ago you changed some but not all of the dates in the references of Assata Shakur from "Year, Month Day" to "[[Month Day]], [[Year]]" with the edit summary "MoS". I have since added more references in the former format. My preference is for the former because the year is generally far more important for the readers than the day and month (and this is how every college professor that I've had so far has asked me to do dates in footnotes for news articles) and becuase I find the wiki-linking to be over-crowding and unecessary (articles about dates and years are notoriously uninformative to readers; I know that wiki-linking the month and day allows readers to customize their date their preferences for how the date is displayed, but I think the utility of this is minized in a footnote and does not outweigh the cost of creating an orgy of blue text).

I wanted to check with you before I change the references one way or the other. Could you more specifically refer me to the imprimatur in the MoS that you were working from. I've noticed that there are featured articles which employ a variety of reference styles, so it's hard for me to believe the MoS is too determinate on this question. If any additional rationale you had for the change has eluded me, please let me know. Savidan 20:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. According to WP:MOSNUM#Full date formatting, the same date format should be used in the main text, footnotes and references of each article. So all the dates in the article should either all be linked or all be unlinked. Epbr123 (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're referring to but I can't for the life of me figure out why that is desirable. For example, nearly every article uses "Retrieved on 2008-05-09." for access dates, but such a format is unthinkable in the main text...Thanks anyway. Savidan 21:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: My RfA

Thank you for clarifying your position. Below I explain my position, and what would convince me to change my vote to support.
I am greatly distraught at the slow but steady creep of policies, guidelines, rules, and codes of conduct on WP, and the nearly complete emasculation of IAR (it transformed from a guiding principle to a small tool to overcome occasional technicalities). One of WP's great strengths used to be the bottom-up nature of editing decisions (is this specific edit better or worse for this specific article), but that is now being steamrolled by top-down imposition of global rules and guidelines, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. For example,
  • There is a growing class of very long articles in desperate need of splitting. The reason they aren't split is that editors are afraid the sub-article will be deleted, as WP:N would have it. The splittable material is important, but not independently important.
  • Generally good, knowledgable editors get a little hotheaded one day, break one of the ever increasing "incivility" codes, and get banned. These people are the lifeblood of the project - people who add the majority of content to articles - and we are banning them by the thousands. Why do you think there are so few wikidragons these days? By the way, what's even worse is the case where 2 wikipedians get into a dispute, and the more politically connected wikipeidan pours through the rules to find a "incivility rule" to bust the other guy on. This happens way more than you might think.
  • Useful templates that add to articles are getting deleted since they don't fit one of the prescribed "appropriate uses" of template space. The discussion at TfD generally goes,
  • Nom: "Delete: misuse of template space per RULE 8345b12",
  • Editors of the article: "yeah, true it doesnt fit the rules, but it actually helps this particular article out.",
  • Several people who lurk deletion discussions but haven't edited the particular article in question: "Delete per nom."
  • Closing admin: "Result was Delete: keep voters failed to make policy-based argument for keeping".
In other words, the poor foresight of the people who made the template rules is hurting actual articles.
In order for me to support you as an admin, I need to be sure that you will not contribute to global instruction creep and the destruction of IAR. There are 2 ways you can convince me to support. 1) You can demonstrate that you share my views on the subject. 2) You can convince me that, while you disagree with me, you will not use your admin powers nor your extra social influence to promote harmful top-down applications of global rules. AfD hero (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with your first point, and an example I can use to demonstrate this was my vehement opposition to the deletion of Eiffel Tower in popular culture. This was a topic that was acceptable as a section of an article, but not deemed acceptable as its own article. When I said I wanted WP:CIVIL to be clarified, I meant it should move more towards what the community's opinion of civility is, which is that each incident of supposed incivility should be judged with common sense and on a case-by-case basis. It should be more closer to this essay. Regarding your third point, I don't have much involvement with TfD, but would agree that a template should be kept if it helped a particular article. Epbr123 (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have misjudged you. I've changed my position to support. Good luck. AfD hero (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I urge you not to follow the advice given to you above. The great improvement of Wikipedia is the adoption of some definite rules, instead of the use of IAR as equivalent to ILIKEIT. In order for many of us to support anyone as admin, we need to know that you will use IAR only when it is absolutely unavoidable. It can be an argument for anything at all. Unless the goal of it has complete consensus it tends to mean improve the encyclopedia the way I want it to be, regardless of the rules the community has established by consensus. Consistency, not improvisation. DGG (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, basically I think the guidelines should be followed unless common sense dictates otherwise. I don't think this opinion is too different from either your's or AfD Hero's. Epbr123 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
DGG, what you suggest (adopting more and more rules for everything and virtually never using IAR), is contrary to the core foundations of Wikipedia. If you think that makes the project better, fine (maybe it would?). If thats what you think, then work to demote IAR and BURO from policy to guidelines, rather than promoting the current situation where lip service is paid to IAR and BURO but they are toothless in practice. AfD hero (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] another RfA

Hiya, I'm finally ready to go ahead with my RfA, for which you nominated me some time ago. I realise you're rather busy at the moment with your own - remarkable - RfA, but when you have a chance I'd be happy to start with mine. Thanks again - and good luck! Pinkville (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for answering

Thanks for answering my Question in your RfA. I decided to give you a support. {Hellboy2hell (Want to talk?) 11:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)}

[edit] And do please contact me

Please contact me if your RfA is succesful. {Hellboy2hell (talk to me!) 11:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)}

Yep. Thanks for the support. Epbr123 (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leonardo (Disambiguation)

Do you have noticed that on the disamb page the vandalism (intentionally mispelled) in reference to Leonardo da Vinci ? I'm removing it... Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok, thanks. It's too late to warn the vandal though. Epbr123 (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC MoS help

Your name came up here as a person I could ask regarding the use of WP:HYPHEN, so I am leaving this message to ask if you would check the article Montana class battleship and ensure that the article is HYPHEN compliant, and if not, get back to me with needed fixes. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)