All of this evening's exchange with Beamathan was I believe in 'jest'. I have no previous experience with this user but a block for this exchange seems a little excessive in my opinion. -- Captain-tucker ( talk) 02:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks, there has been so much vandalism on Boston Red Sox lately that it appears there is a race to see who can revert it first. Have a good evening. -- Captain-tucker ( talk) 02:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Please see my response, it's important that you understand the severity of your poor block.
Please goto User_talk:Beamathan#Threats and read what Keeper and then I say in response to you wanting me to take your advice to heart. Beam 02:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No. That's ludicrous. You couldn't take the 3 minutes to see what was really going on? And now you won't admit that? Great. Beam 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
You should not have blocked me in the first place. It was a bad block that 60 seconds of thinking on your part would have prevented. Your lack of will to admit what happened was wrong and to see the consequence it has is disheartening. Beam 03:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Hello Chillum. I don't believe you and I have ever had any interaction before, on or off Wikipedia. So in that sense my comments now are coming from an unbiased place.
I have read the current content of your talk page, and read some comments you have recently left on the talk page of another user. Based on the content and tone of those comments, I question if your blocking other editors is the best way for you to be contributing to our encyclopedia. Perhaps you would benefit by getting input on your recent actions and comments from more experienced administrators. Have you considered requesting input of that type? ( sdsds - talk) 23:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank-you for being welcoming in your response to my comments! The issue regarding one user threatening another was not what brought me to your page, but lets take that interaction as an example. Specifically, let's look at the sentence: "What did you think people would think when they saw that ranting?" Can characterizing someone's contributions as "rants" make our encyclopedia better? It would definitely do so, if it led to that contributor "ranting" less! Is that the outcome you expect in this case, based on your prior experience? As regards my use of the phrase, "more experienced administrators": I apologize if this seemed to imply a lack of experience on your part. Rather than "more experienced" I might better have used, "calmer" or "more encouraging". One of the major challenges I see us facing is the need to convert new and disruptive contributors into seasoned and constructive contributors. My personal thinking, which I believe is consistent with policy, is that we should do that primarily with encouragment rather than confrontation. Taking a dose of my own medicine.... I recognize your admin duties bring you into interaction with disruptive and ill-tempered contributors. I appreciate the work you do in that regard, and encourage you to continue using restraint and good judgement in your interactions with them. Thanks, and keep up the good work! ( sdsds - talk) 23:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi Chillum,
I only noticed that you deleted The Ringleader: Mixtape Volume III after the deletion discussion was archived. I believe this mixtape to be notable because it does have "significant independent coverage in reliable sources", although this was not demonstrated in the article before it was deleted. Here is a sample of reviews of the mixtape:
I hope you will consider re-creating the article.
Thank you,
Neelix ( talk) 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Please consider looking over a very difficult controversy at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. My single sentence edit to the second paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has been reverted several times thus far; and the demonstrably futile defense of that single sentence has relied on the in-line citation which accompanies it. The talk page defense of that edit is marred by claims that I have been uncivil and that I've engaged in personal attacks. See for yourself how WP:AGF WP:Civil are used as threats, as blunt instruments which are intended to thwart any hope that an exchange of views can lead to a constructive outcome. If you choose to intervene, I would ask that you bear in mind my view that Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation seems worth trying in a situation which is rather more serious than can be easily grasped without a background in Japanese history, modern Japanese constitutional law, and the international naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s.
In short, without any effort to give too fine a point to my words: "Who's kidding who?"-- Tenmei ( talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I found your comment on my page very inappropriate. By what rights do you presume to have a better grip on good manners than me?! And by what rights do you presume to interfere in a discussion I am having with another editor by lecturing me on the form of my speech rather than its content?! If I will feel in need of advice on manners in the future from you I will ask you, though considering your deficient grip on what constitutes proper behavior, I do not think that will take place any time soon. If this is the caliber of people who now are admins on Wikipedia, and if they are allowed to run around unsupervised in this manner, it is not a good sign. Haiduc ( talk) 10:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Just to let you know, as you appear to be online, you have double voted in this RfB as both neutral and support. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
While normally this doesn't bother me too much, could you attempt to practice correct indenting when participating in large discussions? You keep outdenting at WT:RFA and it makes the discussion hard to read. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 18:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
See how I've indented here? It's not usually so important for one on one discussions, but in that large discussion over WT:RFA, it is confusing as to who you are addressing when you don't properly indent. Do you see what I'm saying? Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 18:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:TALK addresses it, and Wikipedia:Indentation goes into more detail. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 18:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I didn't come here to tell you how you have to indent, but to let you know that it's hard to know who you are addressing. For example, here you outdented, yet appear to be addressing a specific editor. Because you outdented, we aren't sure who you are addressing. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Well, that's fine I guess, but in the context of this discussion, changing my indents didn't make too much sense. Indenting on user talk can be whatever... generally its no more than a few users talking, and most of the time just 2, so there is no confusion with indenting. I'm not actually sure how your altering of my indents improved anything, but I guess whatever floats your boat... my suggestions stand for large discussions areas like the noticeboards or WT:RFA. If you are addressing everyone, outdent, if responding to a specific editor, indent one after him. I don't see the complications, but maybe I'm just used to it. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 19:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
All of this evening's exchange with Beamathan was I believe in 'jest'. I have no previous experience with this user but a block for this exchange seems a little excessive in my opinion. -- Captain-tucker ( talk) 02:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks, there has been so much vandalism on Boston Red Sox lately that it appears there is a race to see who can revert it first. Have a good evening. -- Captain-tucker ( talk) 02:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Please see my response, it's important that you understand the severity of your poor block.
Please goto User_talk:Beamathan#Threats and read what Keeper and then I say in response to you wanting me to take your advice to heart. Beam 02:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No. That's ludicrous. You couldn't take the 3 minutes to see what was really going on? And now you won't admit that? Great. Beam 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
You should not have blocked me in the first place. It was a bad block that 60 seconds of thinking on your part would have prevented. Your lack of will to admit what happened was wrong and to see the consequence it has is disheartening. Beam 03:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Hello Chillum. I don't believe you and I have ever had any interaction before, on or off Wikipedia. So in that sense my comments now are coming from an unbiased place.
I have read the current content of your talk page, and read some comments you have recently left on the talk page of another user. Based on the content and tone of those comments, I question if your blocking other editors is the best way for you to be contributing to our encyclopedia. Perhaps you would benefit by getting input on your recent actions and comments from more experienced administrators. Have you considered requesting input of that type? ( sdsds - talk) 23:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank-you for being welcoming in your response to my comments! The issue regarding one user threatening another was not what brought me to your page, but lets take that interaction as an example. Specifically, let's look at the sentence: "What did you think people would think when they saw that ranting?" Can characterizing someone's contributions as "rants" make our encyclopedia better? It would definitely do so, if it led to that contributor "ranting" less! Is that the outcome you expect in this case, based on your prior experience? As regards my use of the phrase, "more experienced administrators": I apologize if this seemed to imply a lack of experience on your part. Rather than "more experienced" I might better have used, "calmer" or "more encouraging". One of the major challenges I see us facing is the need to convert new and disruptive contributors into seasoned and constructive contributors. My personal thinking, which I believe is consistent with policy, is that we should do that primarily with encouragment rather than confrontation. Taking a dose of my own medicine.... I recognize your admin duties bring you into interaction with disruptive and ill-tempered contributors. I appreciate the work you do in that regard, and encourage you to continue using restraint and good judgement in your interactions with them. Thanks, and keep up the good work! ( sdsds - talk) 23:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi Chillum,
I only noticed that you deleted The Ringleader: Mixtape Volume III after the deletion discussion was archived. I believe this mixtape to be notable because it does have "significant independent coverage in reliable sources", although this was not demonstrated in the article before it was deleted. Here is a sample of reviews of the mixtape:
I hope you will consider re-creating the article.
Thank you,
Neelix ( talk) 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Please consider looking over a very difficult controversy at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. My single sentence edit to the second paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has been reverted several times thus far; and the demonstrably futile defense of that single sentence has relied on the in-line citation which accompanies it. The talk page defense of that edit is marred by claims that I have been uncivil and that I've engaged in personal attacks. See for yourself how WP:AGF WP:Civil are used as threats, as blunt instruments which are intended to thwart any hope that an exchange of views can lead to a constructive outcome. If you choose to intervene, I would ask that you bear in mind my view that Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation seems worth trying in a situation which is rather more serious than can be easily grasped without a background in Japanese history, modern Japanese constitutional law, and the international naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s.
In short, without any effort to give too fine a point to my words: "Who's kidding who?"-- Tenmei ( talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I found your comment on my page very inappropriate. By what rights do you presume to have a better grip on good manners than me?! And by what rights do you presume to interfere in a discussion I am having with another editor by lecturing me on the form of my speech rather than its content?! If I will feel in need of advice on manners in the future from you I will ask you, though considering your deficient grip on what constitutes proper behavior, I do not think that will take place any time soon. If this is the caliber of people who now are admins on Wikipedia, and if they are allowed to run around unsupervised in this manner, it is not a good sign. Haiduc ( talk) 10:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Just to let you know, as you appear to be online, you have double voted in this RfB as both neutral and support. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
While normally this doesn't bother me too much, could you attempt to practice correct indenting when participating in large discussions? You keep outdenting at WT:RFA and it makes the discussion hard to read. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 18:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
See how I've indented here? It's not usually so important for one on one discussions, but in that large discussion over WT:RFA, it is confusing as to who you are addressing when you don't properly indent. Do you see what I'm saying? Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 18:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:TALK addresses it, and Wikipedia:Indentation goes into more detail. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 18:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I didn't come here to tell you how you have to indent, but to let you know that it's hard to know who you are addressing. For example, here you outdented, yet appear to be addressing a specific editor. Because you outdented, we aren't sure who you are addressing. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Well, that's fine I guess, but in the context of this discussion, changing my indents didn't make too much sense. Indenting on user talk can be whatever... generally its no more than a few users talking, and most of the time just 2, so there is no confusion with indenting. I'm not actually sure how your altering of my indents improved anything, but I guess whatever floats your boat... my suggestions stand for large discussions areas like the noticeboards or WT:RFA. If you are addressing everyone, outdent, if responding to a specific editor, indent one after him. I don't see the complications, but maybe I'm just used to it. Gwynand | Talk• Contribs 19:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply