Thank you very much for your participation in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I am very grateful for all of the advice, and hope that it will help me grow as an editor. Sincerely, Neranei T/ C 11:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Seriously Kurt, you are disrupting wikipedia to make a point, keep doing that prima facie nonsense to all self-noms in WP:RFA, and I will block you. Jaranda wat's sup 02:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I have questioned your comment on the TPH RFA. Perhaps you could come shed some light. Thanks, Navou 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop commeting on RfA's about your personal "I view self noms as a power hungry", some people just dont want to draw loads of attention to themselves by having loads of co-noms so please stop this totally idiotic thing, looking at your contribs you dont even both to actually take a look at the user themself just quickly !voting, you made two in one minute recently. So just stop before someone blocks you. Rlest 09:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I have listed a discussion at AN/I here. Regards, Navou 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
This user is OK! | |
You are hereby awarded the Infrangible seal of approval for your contributions and overall, mostly not-bad-ness. ~ Infrangible 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC) |
I want to apologise for accusing you of sour grapes at WT:RFA. I would concede that people's views can change over time, and that there's no evidence of you holding a grudge about something which happened over two years ago. I'm also worried that my comments looked a little like an ad hominem attack - attacking the arguer, not the argument. For what it's worth, although I strongly disagree with your views on self-noms, I accept the validity of your reasoning, and support your right to express your opinion. I firmly believe that freedom of expression is extremely healthy for any community or society (as a libertarian, you no doubt agree with this principle), and I certainly wouldn't advocate removing your comments from RfAs, a course of action which has been suggested by some editors. Walton One 10:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the contract stuff you added to {{ Infobox NFLactive}}. It might be a good thing to discuss that on that talk page first before adding it. It's a good idea, i just don't think it'll hold up well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 18:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a polite note to let you know that your behaviour on RfA is, along with that of other editors, proving disruptive to the project and is spilling over into user talk pages and onto noticeboards. I'm prepared to block you for disruption along with other users if any future comments on RfAs get out of hand as is happening at present. Please consider your behaviour and examine the impact it is having on the wider community. Nick 18:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
|
My RFA | |
User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
Saw your comment on the PSI page, and wanted to point out that a number of other articles, including Wabash County, Illinois, Mount Carmel, Illinois, Indiana State Road 64 and those for several neighboring counties and towns also have outstanding Photo requests. I've been hoping to blitz the tri-state over xmas when I go back home, but if you beat me to it, you'll be a minor hero. MrZaius talk 19:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Kurt, I asked administrators to post this as I have understandably not been unblocked. I'm here to apologise for my calling you an idiot under this account. Although I (and in the kindest possible way everybody else on Wikipedia) strongly dis-agree with your reasons to oppose users just because they're self noms has become out of control. I would also like you to know that the IP address what called you an idiot on your talk page was not me, rather banned user Molag Bal who causes immense trouble for me on Wikipedia and did throughout the incident when I edited as Qst. i hope you accept my apologies, I also hope you find it in your heart to stop this opposing requests for adminship based solely on it being a self nomination, Best Regards. Rlest 17:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Good after noon Kurt. It seems that both Dr. Sillett and myself are in agreement about the excessive length of the wiki entry for Dr. Sillett. While I understand that it is better to trim the article to size rather than bulk deletion, I do not see how my current revision is excessive. How would one "trim the fat" from such a lengthy, young, and self-aggrandizing vanity page. Even this current page is excessive for the calibre of scientist Dr. Sillet truely is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVarkey ( talk • contribs)
It doesn't matter how good of a scientist you or anyone else thinks he is. The length of a subject's article is determined not by the importance of a subject but rather by how much relevant, verifiable information is available on him. Just because he might not be a very good scientist is no reason to trim down his article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the information that you have removed. Kurt Weber 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you sir, for your help in the ettiquette of Wikipedia. I reverted the article to the form it was before I ever edited it. I will allow the Wiki community to do any future edits of Dr. Sillett. Thanks. -- DrVarkey 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that you have opposed every self-nomination on WP:RFA, and with all due respect, opposing self-noms on an inherent basis is just wrong. Self-noms are not only allowed, they are encouraged, especially if you cannot find anyone to nominate you without asking (see Wikipedia:Canvassing). I mean, self-nominations are not something to really oppose for, and I have a strong feeling that the bureaucrats will not take your votes without further explanation. Thank you. Diez2 14:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Not even worth talk about it (I say as I talk about it). He won't discuss it substantively, and was himself a self nom. Personally, I just wish he'd say "hunger for power" instead of "power hunger"... just seems to roll of the lips a but more fluidly. Hiberniantears 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to discuss it several times already, and every time I was ridiculed or ignored. And yes, I self-nommed myself once; that was two years ago. Is it that inconceivable that people might change their minds over time? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, if you at least explained why you believe such a risk exists, many editors might be willing to take your view more seriously. I realize you have no evidence, but why do you feel this way? What motivates you to believe this? Philosophically speaking, do you fear the granting of "power" generally, and therefore fear those who seek it on their own more so over those nominated by others? I think your standard oppose statement frustrates a great many editors because there are many who believe you have the right to make such a statement, but there is very little agreement as to whether or not it holds any value because you do not explain why you believe, and as I have noted, you are yourself a prior self-nom, who simply states you changed your mind... but you do not say why you changed your mind. My point is simply this: If you think you have a well founded reason for opposing self-noms, why not develop a fully articulated explanation of why you believe this in order to make certain your contributions are taken constructively, and receive greater merit? Hiberniantears 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, while I don't agree with Kurt's assertion that self-nom indicates being power hungry, I find it at least an understandable sentiment. I think people should probably hassle him less about it. If the crats disregard it, so be it. I do completely agree that if someone seems power-hungry, or authoritarian, or displays any tendency to try to throw their weight around, this makes them an unsuitable candidate. Friday (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
To everyone concerned about Kmweber's self-nom opposes: A request for comment has been made on this issue. Please continue this discussion here concerning the self-nom opposes of RfAs. Diez2 05:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Trent Green has not started a game for the Dolphins, so please don't add him to the template. He's not even running the first team in training camp yet, Cleo Lemon is, and there's always a chance Green could get knocked out for the year due to injury. This is what WP:CRYSTAL is about.► Chris Nelson 15:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I know you will completely disregard this comment altogether, as you clearly don't care what anyone else thinks. However, here is my question: Let's say that your oppositions to self-noms are valid, then how come you have never once actually supported someone (aside from once in protest of your critics)? In fact, have you ever so much as commented on an RfA where the candidate had a separate nominator? Why do you refuse to consider anyone at all? I am not trying to be particularly critical (as I've been critical of you before, and clearly, neither my nor anyone else's opinions matter to you), but merely asking. I am absolutely, 100% willing to listen to your opinions on why someone who self-noms is power hungry, and I am also willing to listen to why you simply refuse to look at the actual credentials of anyone running for adminship. As it is obvious you don't care whether an editor becomes an admin or not, why even bother opposing, especially when bureaucrats have stated that they disregard your comments anyway?
Like I said, I don't expect you to respond to this, but I would certainly appreciate a reply. Also, I apologize for the previous paragraphs' slight rambling tone, as I ask a few questions that may or may not be strongly related to each other. Thank you. --
Kicking222
16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Can you please provide evidence of the "problems"? Sorry if this seems harsh, but the way you cling to your opinion without appearing to even consider the other side, you'd think there was mass admin abuse from self-noms. Smokizzy ( talk) 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of intellectual honesty, can you admit that no self-nom, or even a non-self-nom admin will ever cause Wikipedia to unleash upon the world anything as dangerous as the Demi-God George Washington managed to trigger at the Battle of Jumonville Glen? Maybe the guy was hesitant to be President because he'd already started a World War. No contentious deletion of a poorly sourced image on Wikipedia ever led to a seven year war involving the world's major powers... not yet at least... Food for thought. Hiberniantears 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the formatting advice. Shabda 16:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to get a new perspective on the topic. As you may have noticed a number of heated debate(s) have broken out on that page. Please contribute as much as possible and if you feel like you would like my specific opinion, please let me know. My run-ins with another editor on there have been pretty intense and I'm trying to avoid wars with him, as such, I am inclined to not respond to a number of his recent posts. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 20:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I just found it interesting that you had nominated yourself for an RfA, and people said things like you were going to push your own agenda instead of following consensus. Basically it said that if you got the mop, power hunger would take over. Seems like a violation of WP:POINT. If it really means that much to you, I will retract my "misinformed" comment. J-stan Talk Contribs 16:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The irony here, in my opinion, is that this is exactly what he has gone on to do with the RfA process - push his own agenda without regard to the views of the community. I'd bet the farm that on this basis alone any future Kmweber RfA will fail. Avruch Talk 17:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The date was taken from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia [1]. You may also wanna check Britannica [2]. Take care and drop me a line if you have any questions! KNewman 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice that some of your categories are being deleted, per this discussion? That's why the bot keeps trying to remove them from your userpage; because they won't exist any more soon. - FisherQueen ( Talk) 03:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the undrafted field on the NFLactive template: It is part of a very big problem right now going on that infobox. I am not inclined to leave the information in there because of the dispute. You might want to consider reading the {{ Infobox NFLactive}} ( t/ l) page before adding it to other articles. Perhaps you would like to add to the discussion as well - it would be great to get more input in here. Just be aware of the fact that tensions are high between myself and two other editors. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
How do you vote in real life? Melsaran ( talk) 12:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your participation in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I am very grateful for all of the advice, and hope that it will help me grow as an editor. Sincerely, Neranei T/ C 11:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Seriously Kurt, you are disrupting wikipedia to make a point, keep doing that prima facie nonsense to all self-noms in WP:RFA, and I will block you. Jaranda wat's sup 02:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I have questioned your comment on the TPH RFA. Perhaps you could come shed some light. Thanks, Navou 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop commeting on RfA's about your personal "I view self noms as a power hungry", some people just dont want to draw loads of attention to themselves by having loads of co-noms so please stop this totally idiotic thing, looking at your contribs you dont even both to actually take a look at the user themself just quickly !voting, you made two in one minute recently. So just stop before someone blocks you. Rlest 09:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I have listed a discussion at AN/I here. Regards, Navou 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
This user is OK! | |
You are hereby awarded the Infrangible seal of approval for your contributions and overall, mostly not-bad-ness. ~ Infrangible 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC) |
I want to apologise for accusing you of sour grapes at WT:RFA. I would concede that people's views can change over time, and that there's no evidence of you holding a grudge about something which happened over two years ago. I'm also worried that my comments looked a little like an ad hominem attack - attacking the arguer, not the argument. For what it's worth, although I strongly disagree with your views on self-noms, I accept the validity of your reasoning, and support your right to express your opinion. I firmly believe that freedom of expression is extremely healthy for any community or society (as a libertarian, you no doubt agree with this principle), and I certainly wouldn't advocate removing your comments from RfAs, a course of action which has been suggested by some editors. Walton One 10:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the contract stuff you added to {{ Infobox NFLactive}}. It might be a good thing to discuss that on that talk page first before adding it. It's a good idea, i just don't think it'll hold up well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 18:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a polite note to let you know that your behaviour on RfA is, along with that of other editors, proving disruptive to the project and is spilling over into user talk pages and onto noticeboards. I'm prepared to block you for disruption along with other users if any future comments on RfAs get out of hand as is happening at present. Please consider your behaviour and examine the impact it is having on the wider community. Nick 18:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
|
My RFA | |
User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
Saw your comment on the PSI page, and wanted to point out that a number of other articles, including Wabash County, Illinois, Mount Carmel, Illinois, Indiana State Road 64 and those for several neighboring counties and towns also have outstanding Photo requests. I've been hoping to blitz the tri-state over xmas when I go back home, but if you beat me to it, you'll be a minor hero. MrZaius talk 19:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Kurt, I asked administrators to post this as I have understandably not been unblocked. I'm here to apologise for my calling you an idiot under this account. Although I (and in the kindest possible way everybody else on Wikipedia) strongly dis-agree with your reasons to oppose users just because they're self noms has become out of control. I would also like you to know that the IP address what called you an idiot on your talk page was not me, rather banned user Molag Bal who causes immense trouble for me on Wikipedia and did throughout the incident when I edited as Qst. i hope you accept my apologies, I also hope you find it in your heart to stop this opposing requests for adminship based solely on it being a self nomination, Best Regards. Rlest 17:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Good after noon Kurt. It seems that both Dr. Sillett and myself are in agreement about the excessive length of the wiki entry for Dr. Sillett. While I understand that it is better to trim the article to size rather than bulk deletion, I do not see how my current revision is excessive. How would one "trim the fat" from such a lengthy, young, and self-aggrandizing vanity page. Even this current page is excessive for the calibre of scientist Dr. Sillet truely is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVarkey ( talk • contribs)
It doesn't matter how good of a scientist you or anyone else thinks he is. The length of a subject's article is determined not by the importance of a subject but rather by how much relevant, verifiable information is available on him. Just because he might not be a very good scientist is no reason to trim down his article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the information that you have removed. Kurt Weber 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you sir, for your help in the ettiquette of Wikipedia. I reverted the article to the form it was before I ever edited it. I will allow the Wiki community to do any future edits of Dr. Sillett. Thanks. -- DrVarkey 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that you have opposed every self-nomination on WP:RFA, and with all due respect, opposing self-noms on an inherent basis is just wrong. Self-noms are not only allowed, they are encouraged, especially if you cannot find anyone to nominate you without asking (see Wikipedia:Canvassing). I mean, self-nominations are not something to really oppose for, and I have a strong feeling that the bureaucrats will not take your votes without further explanation. Thank you. Diez2 14:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Not even worth talk about it (I say as I talk about it). He won't discuss it substantively, and was himself a self nom. Personally, I just wish he'd say "hunger for power" instead of "power hunger"... just seems to roll of the lips a but more fluidly. Hiberniantears 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to discuss it several times already, and every time I was ridiculed or ignored. And yes, I self-nommed myself once; that was two years ago. Is it that inconceivable that people might change their minds over time? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, if you at least explained why you believe such a risk exists, many editors might be willing to take your view more seriously. I realize you have no evidence, but why do you feel this way? What motivates you to believe this? Philosophically speaking, do you fear the granting of "power" generally, and therefore fear those who seek it on their own more so over those nominated by others? I think your standard oppose statement frustrates a great many editors because there are many who believe you have the right to make such a statement, but there is very little agreement as to whether or not it holds any value because you do not explain why you believe, and as I have noted, you are yourself a prior self-nom, who simply states you changed your mind... but you do not say why you changed your mind. My point is simply this: If you think you have a well founded reason for opposing self-noms, why not develop a fully articulated explanation of why you believe this in order to make certain your contributions are taken constructively, and receive greater merit? Hiberniantears 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, while I don't agree with Kurt's assertion that self-nom indicates being power hungry, I find it at least an understandable sentiment. I think people should probably hassle him less about it. If the crats disregard it, so be it. I do completely agree that if someone seems power-hungry, or authoritarian, or displays any tendency to try to throw their weight around, this makes them an unsuitable candidate. Friday (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
To everyone concerned about Kmweber's self-nom opposes: A request for comment has been made on this issue. Please continue this discussion here concerning the self-nom opposes of RfAs. Diez2 05:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Trent Green has not started a game for the Dolphins, so please don't add him to the template. He's not even running the first team in training camp yet, Cleo Lemon is, and there's always a chance Green could get knocked out for the year due to injury. This is what WP:CRYSTAL is about.► Chris Nelson 15:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I know you will completely disregard this comment altogether, as you clearly don't care what anyone else thinks. However, here is my question: Let's say that your oppositions to self-noms are valid, then how come you have never once actually supported someone (aside from once in protest of your critics)? In fact, have you ever so much as commented on an RfA where the candidate had a separate nominator? Why do you refuse to consider anyone at all? I am not trying to be particularly critical (as I've been critical of you before, and clearly, neither my nor anyone else's opinions matter to you), but merely asking. I am absolutely, 100% willing to listen to your opinions on why someone who self-noms is power hungry, and I am also willing to listen to why you simply refuse to look at the actual credentials of anyone running for adminship. As it is obvious you don't care whether an editor becomes an admin or not, why even bother opposing, especially when bureaucrats have stated that they disregard your comments anyway?
Like I said, I don't expect you to respond to this, but I would certainly appreciate a reply. Also, I apologize for the previous paragraphs' slight rambling tone, as I ask a few questions that may or may not be strongly related to each other. Thank you. --
Kicking222
16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Can you please provide evidence of the "problems"? Sorry if this seems harsh, but the way you cling to your opinion without appearing to even consider the other side, you'd think there was mass admin abuse from self-noms. Smokizzy ( talk) 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of intellectual honesty, can you admit that no self-nom, or even a non-self-nom admin will ever cause Wikipedia to unleash upon the world anything as dangerous as the Demi-God George Washington managed to trigger at the Battle of Jumonville Glen? Maybe the guy was hesitant to be President because he'd already started a World War. No contentious deletion of a poorly sourced image on Wikipedia ever led to a seven year war involving the world's major powers... not yet at least... Food for thought. Hiberniantears 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the formatting advice. Shabda 16:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to get a new perspective on the topic. As you may have noticed a number of heated debate(s) have broken out on that page. Please contribute as much as possible and if you feel like you would like my specific opinion, please let me know. My run-ins with another editor on there have been pretty intense and I'm trying to avoid wars with him, as such, I am inclined to not respond to a number of his recent posts. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 20:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I just found it interesting that you had nominated yourself for an RfA, and people said things like you were going to push your own agenda instead of following consensus. Basically it said that if you got the mop, power hunger would take over. Seems like a violation of WP:POINT. If it really means that much to you, I will retract my "misinformed" comment. J-stan Talk Contribs 16:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The irony here, in my opinion, is that this is exactly what he has gone on to do with the RfA process - push his own agenda without regard to the views of the community. I'd bet the farm that on this basis alone any future Kmweber RfA will fail. Avruch Talk 17:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The date was taken from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia [1]. You may also wanna check Britannica [2]. Take care and drop me a line if you have any questions! KNewman 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice that some of your categories are being deleted, per this discussion? That's why the bot keeps trying to remove them from your userpage; because they won't exist any more soon. - FisherQueen ( Talk) 03:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the undrafted field on the NFLactive template: It is part of a very big problem right now going on that infobox. I am not inclined to leave the information in there because of the dispute. You might want to consider reading the {{ Infobox NFLactive}} ( t/ l) page before adding it to other articles. Perhaps you would like to add to the discussion as well - it would be great to get more input in here. Just be aware of the fact that tensions are high between myself and two other editors. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
How do you vote in real life? Melsaran ( talk) 12:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)