![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Atheists are no more a "hate group" than are Christians. In fact, if you look at lynchings, bombings, cross-burnings, beating people up, and such stuff as that... between atheists and Christians, which one is guilty of those activities? I do think of Atheism as religion-like in a number of ways. But calling them a "hate group" is ridiculous, unless you're willing to concede that all religions are inherently "hate groups". ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) (re Bugs' comment) Two things: a hate group promotes hate; they don't actually need to participate in violent activity. WBC is a hate group and they've not killed anyone yet. Also, as I mentioned above, "religion" or "atheism" is a broad, imprecise term. WikiProject Atheism, from Keepscases' point of view, has been promoting discord among users through the inclusion (previously) of divisive userboxes on its main page. By his interpretation of "hate group", that makes the WikiProject one. If your interpretation does not make the project a hate group, Bugs, then, well—it doesn't. No point in arguing about this because the whole point is that opinions are completely legitimate. / ƒETCH COMMS / 05:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Keepscases, you really haven't given a suffucient answer to the question we have asked. Why is WikiProject Athiesm A Hate group?. Why? Tofutwitch11Alt (Talk) 15:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Since you did not tag the page or create the nomination, I went ahead and removed the transclusion from the AfD list. If you would like to relist it, please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, MrKIA11 ( talk) 19:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 08:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC).
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC).
Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Please review the comment I appended here and consider commenting (by word or deed) at that location. Thanks, My76Strat ( talk) 00:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your participation on my RfA |
Thank you for your question at my RfA; sorry I couldn't answer it directly. However, it actually did make me think for a long while about both WP:OUTING and my own online presence. I shall endeavor to meet the communities expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
For your epic comment on that RfA
"Too much fighting of oppose votes by candidate and nominator." |
Hope everything is well. The Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs 14:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.
I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
Wise people resist the urge to turn RfA into a dramafest. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Not everybody wishes to waste their time answering your questions. The proof of that statement is that in the last couple of hours we've had a flood of candidates withdrawing their nominations. Well done Keepscases, keep up the good work on your favourite project . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I had decided once and for all to keep out of this from now on, but now that you have added blatant misinformation to RfA, I most seriously doubt the good faith in your participation on Wikipedia, and hope that this time round something will be done about it. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 ( talk) 14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for your comment at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Keepscases,
I am the beginner in Wikipedia, but would like to become an admin sometime, so your kind assistance would be very useful to me. I hope to count on your nomination as I reach the level of edits required by Wiki rules (soon, hopefully) - have only 1500+ edits so far in English Wiki. I will really appreciate your support when I reach the edit number necessary for adminship --
Orekhova (
talk)
14:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't have the right to change grammar or anything on my User page. Don't do it again. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Your Oppose here started a discussion about the candidate's username, which ended with my suggestion of "FSF Christine" as a middle ground option for her Sig. If that or another idea doesn't work, she's expressed a willingness to Change her username to User:Christine (which, amazingly, is available). When you get a chance, could you weigh in on the proposal? Since this came from your comment, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
First time I've ever seen a Finnegans Wake excerpt in an RfA. 28bytes ( talk) 22:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
at an RfA. I know some people don't like them, but I find they give a valuable insight into the candidate in a way statistics can't. Keep up the good work. Peridon ( talk) 20:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Your accounting for your neutrality doesn't strike me as informative or persuasive. Is there some bad history between you two?
Please pick a paragraph written in the RfA and parse the candidate's syntax and count the clichés. Please correct me if my sample (the age question) was unrepresentative, and the candidate does write well enough. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Your last three edits to My76Strat's RFA contain unacceptable personal attacks. While I note that another administrator has already instructed you to "behave," consider this a final warning that continued personal attacks will not be tolerated, certainly not when you're using a third user's RFA as a platform from which to make them. If I'd seen these comments when you'd made them, I likely would have blocked you on the spot. As it is, I strongly recommend that you redact them. Hersfold non-admin( t/ a/ c) 14:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
BarlowGirl, please cite a
reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. See
Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
...For the offer of an RfB nom. I have to say no thanks. I'm way too over-committed in RL as it is. Anyway, my RfA experience was such that I doubt that I'd fare at all well... -- Orlady ( talk) 23:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Just dropping by. :) Acalamari 22:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For all of your work at RfA! Your questions, comments, and votes analyze candidates in a way that statistics can't! Electric Catfish 23:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
Hello, Keepscases. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the main page wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. |
Happy editing! Automatic Strikeout 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Keepscases
! I have started my second editor review at
Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for
Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on
Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing!
TheGeneralUser (
talk)
19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
-Scottywong
| prattle _
01:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)I accept this block graciously. My emotions got the best of me last night and I'm sorry. Keepscases ( talk) 02:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't do many civility blocks, and civility issues are part of the rationale for this block. Good luck with any future unblock requests. Drmies ( talk) 03:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Keepscases, I have unblocked you for time served. Please see my note on Scottywong's talk page if you're interested in a general explanation. Let me add that I shortened it (quite considerably, and possibly too much according to other admins) because you expressed regret and I think it unlikely you will do this again. I would like to ask you a few things, but it's a question since I have no intention of mandating this: that you a. express your regret over your hasty comments to Kudpung; b. agree that conflicts and disagreements should be handled in a better way; c. at least try to refrain from commenting on Kudpung. I don't want to suggest that you single him out; I am not a good enough student of your edit history for that, but I do know that you two go back a bit.
Finally, it seems obvious that you are controversial enough for other admins to keep an eye on you; I have little doubt that further unacceptable remarks will be met by a block. Please, no more allegations of ball-sucking. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 15:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Atheists are no more a "hate group" than are Christians. In fact, if you look at lynchings, bombings, cross-burnings, beating people up, and such stuff as that... between atheists and Christians, which one is guilty of those activities? I do think of Atheism as religion-like in a number of ways. But calling them a "hate group" is ridiculous, unless you're willing to concede that all religions are inherently "hate groups". ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) (re Bugs' comment) Two things: a hate group promotes hate; they don't actually need to participate in violent activity. WBC is a hate group and they've not killed anyone yet. Also, as I mentioned above, "religion" or "atheism" is a broad, imprecise term. WikiProject Atheism, from Keepscases' point of view, has been promoting discord among users through the inclusion (previously) of divisive userboxes on its main page. By his interpretation of "hate group", that makes the WikiProject one. If your interpretation does not make the project a hate group, Bugs, then, well—it doesn't. No point in arguing about this because the whole point is that opinions are completely legitimate. / ƒETCH COMMS / 05:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Keepscases, you really haven't given a suffucient answer to the question we have asked. Why is WikiProject Athiesm A Hate group?. Why? Tofutwitch11Alt (Talk) 15:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Since you did not tag the page or create the nomination, I went ahead and removed the transclusion from the AfD list. If you would like to relist it, please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, MrKIA11 ( talk) 19:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 08:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC).
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC).
Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Please review the comment I appended here and consider commenting (by word or deed) at that location. Thanks, My76Strat ( talk) 00:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your participation on my RfA |
Thank you for your question at my RfA; sorry I couldn't answer it directly. However, it actually did make me think for a long while about both WP:OUTING and my own online presence. I shall endeavor to meet the communities expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
For your epic comment on that RfA
"Too much fighting of oppose votes by candidate and nominator." |
Hope everything is well. The Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs 14:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.
I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
Wise people resist the urge to turn RfA into a dramafest. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Not everybody wishes to waste their time answering your questions. The proof of that statement is that in the last couple of hours we've had a flood of candidates withdrawing their nominations. Well done Keepscases, keep up the good work on your favourite project . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I had decided once and for all to keep out of this from now on, but now that you have added blatant misinformation to RfA, I most seriously doubt the good faith in your participation on Wikipedia, and hope that this time round something will be done about it. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 ( talk) 14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for your comment at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Keepscases,
I am the beginner in Wikipedia, but would like to become an admin sometime, so your kind assistance would be very useful to me. I hope to count on your nomination as I reach the level of edits required by Wiki rules (soon, hopefully) - have only 1500+ edits so far in English Wiki. I will really appreciate your support when I reach the edit number necessary for adminship --
Orekhova (
talk)
14:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't have the right to change grammar or anything on my User page. Don't do it again. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Your Oppose here started a discussion about the candidate's username, which ended with my suggestion of "FSF Christine" as a middle ground option for her Sig. If that or another idea doesn't work, she's expressed a willingness to Change her username to User:Christine (which, amazingly, is available). When you get a chance, could you weigh in on the proposal? Since this came from your comment, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
First time I've ever seen a Finnegans Wake excerpt in an RfA. 28bytes ( talk) 22:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
at an RfA. I know some people don't like them, but I find they give a valuable insight into the candidate in a way statistics can't. Keep up the good work. Peridon ( talk) 20:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Your accounting for your neutrality doesn't strike me as informative or persuasive. Is there some bad history between you two?
Please pick a paragraph written in the RfA and parse the candidate's syntax and count the clichés. Please correct me if my sample (the age question) was unrepresentative, and the candidate does write well enough. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Your last three edits to My76Strat's RFA contain unacceptable personal attacks. While I note that another administrator has already instructed you to "behave," consider this a final warning that continued personal attacks will not be tolerated, certainly not when you're using a third user's RFA as a platform from which to make them. If I'd seen these comments when you'd made them, I likely would have blocked you on the spot. As it is, I strongly recommend that you redact them. Hersfold non-admin( t/ a/ c) 14:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
BarlowGirl, please cite a
reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. See
Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
...For the offer of an RfB nom. I have to say no thanks. I'm way too over-committed in RL as it is. Anyway, my RfA experience was such that I doubt that I'd fare at all well... -- Orlady ( talk) 23:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Just dropping by. :) Acalamari 22:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For all of your work at RfA! Your questions, comments, and votes analyze candidates in a way that statistics can't! Electric Catfish 23:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
Hello, Keepscases. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the main page wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. |
Happy editing! Automatic Strikeout 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Keepscases
! I have started my second editor review at
Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for
Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on
Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing!
TheGeneralUser (
talk)
19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
-Scottywong
| prattle _
01:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)I accept this block graciously. My emotions got the best of me last night and I'm sorry. Keepscases ( talk) 02:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't do many civility blocks, and civility issues are part of the rationale for this block. Good luck with any future unblock requests. Drmies ( talk) 03:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Keepscases, I have unblocked you for time served. Please see my note on Scottywong's talk page if you're interested in a general explanation. Let me add that I shortened it (quite considerably, and possibly too much according to other admins) because you expressed regret and I think it unlikely you will do this again. I would like to ask you a few things, but it's a question since I have no intention of mandating this: that you a. express your regret over your hasty comments to Kudpung; b. agree that conflicts and disagreements should be handled in a better way; c. at least try to refrain from commenting on Kudpung. I don't want to suggest that you single him out; I am not a good enough student of your edit history for that, but I do know that you two go back a bit.
Finally, it seems obvious that you are controversial enough for other admins to keep an eye on you; I have little doubt that further unacceptable remarks will be met by a block. Please, no more allegations of ball-sucking. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 15:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)