Hello, is it possible to unblock creation for /info/en/?search=Gi2C_Group ? We have followed instructions from moderators and we wrote the article so it respects wikipedia guidelines. Regards
Hi I tried to correct the link for Ryan_Johnson_(actor) on the Somerset page - can you unlock the page so I can do this? The link now directs to 6 different Ryan Johnsons
THanks! Jookieapc ( talk) 14:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
In 2012, you create-protected the page Thomas Ridgewell. Recently, I stumbled across an article at WP:AFC called Draft:Tomka (which should actually be Thomas Ridgewell because Tomka is only a nickname). I went over the sources, and although some were very brief mentions, some had a paragraph dedicated to him and some had a whole article about him. I think his notability increased over the past two years and is ready to become an article. If you could please help me move the article, that would be great. Thanks, ΤheQ Editor Talk? 02:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi!
I was just writing to ask why you deleted the La Sera page... My name is Katy Goodman, I played in the band Vivian Girls /info/en/?search=Vivian_Girls , and La Sera is my other band. We have 3 albums out on Hardly Art records, (on itunes, spotify, etc), have songs in TV shows and commercials, etc. The other associated acts for Vivian Girls (the babies, upset) both have their own pages, so it makes sense for La Sera to also have a page.
Here is our artist page: http://www.hardlyart.com/lasera.html
What can I do to create a wikipedia page for La Sera? I know that some people have previously tried to create it, but it keeps getting deleted.
Thanks! Katy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickballkaty ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey!
ok so here is the updated version of the article, with lots of references and things... /info/en/?search=User:Thriley/La_Sera_(draft) . can we make it into the official "La Sera" wikipedia page?
thanks!! Katy 76.94.196.234 ( talk) 19:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
La Sera has been featured many times in numerous reliable sources such as The New York Times and The Washington Post over the past four years. Proper citations are included in the article. It seems only right that such a longstanding and influential group have a page. Thriley ( talk) 10:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, last year, you said not to tag G13 eligible submissions to me ( here) - Can you have a look at my contribs and am I ok to tag them? (Yes, I know I don't have to ask, but just wanted to be sure) — revimsg 15:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Wel, I think the reasons for that were obvious at the time but your experience may changed since. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, can you please un-salt this page, notability can now be established. Cheers, Nik the stunned 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Draft:La Sera appears to meet WP:N, can you please unblock La Sera so we can publish it? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 02:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your comments: First, I apologize in advance if any of what I say is already well-known by you; I suspect that at least in part it is. However, in the interest of avoiding misunderstandings, I thought I would provide some feedback on your comments and style of discussion.
I confess to feeling the same way as when others have interacted with you in the past (including me once before). I've reviewed the material you presented and I highly appreciate the research that has gone into it. I agree with lots of it, but there are others who don't, or haven't read it, and just telling them "go read this" hasn't worked for many of them. If the gap from dissatisfaction to action is going to be bridged, new ways of fostering support will have to be tried.
If there is someone interested in searching for candidates, even if we already have a lot of data from past searches, it would be nice for them to continue to add to that data set, for a number of reasons: new, fresh data is usually good to have, and it helps provide an attainable objective for the person doing the legwork. Even if they don't manage to attract some new admin candidates, or if their efforts fade out, they can still feel a sense of accomplishment in adding to our understanding of the issues. Getting people to have some investment in working on the problem and determining solutions is a good way to build consensus. Lastly, it is a typical good practice to review the results of your work after it is done, no matter how many times you've done it already.
Unfortunately, I personally feel the tone in some of your comments is somewhat dismissive of the courses of action suggested by others, based on an assumption that others have not benefited from previous analysis and investigation. This is discouraging, particularly in a volunteer environment where people tend to do tasks that they want to do. For me, because I strongly respect the investment you've made in the area, I just say to myself, OK, if others don't wish to discuss my suggestions, that's fine: I'll just move on to other things. I don't know if this is what you intend: to try to find a group of persons whose ways of approaching the problem align with yours,(*) so you can collectively join efforts in finding solutions. I understand if this is the case, and it can be a good way to harness the efforts of a set of editors interested in promoting changes.
(*) Note this does not mean this group would all have the same opinions as you; just that they are generally inclined to tackle an issue in the same way as you do.
I thank you for the time you have spent in studying, thinking about, and developing ideas about some of Wikipedia's key shortcomings, and I recognize by contrast my views do not have the same weight behind them. Accordingly, I am personally happy to let you proceed with the initiatives that are satisfactory to you, and I believe Wikipedia will be better for it. In the interest of helping your plans succeed, though, I believe adopting a slightly more inclusive style of interaction will garner support from a broader set of persons, which will strengthen any resulting consensus. isaacl ( talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, thank you for the "thank you" [1] . If I were the Empress of Arbcomia, I would decree that no party be allowed to submit evidence against anyone else until they had done a thorough examination of conscience and listed all the things they had personally done (with diffs) which led to and/or exacerbated the situation which had landed everyone there. They would be judged on technical merit, artistic impression, and self-awareness. Anyone with a score of less than 6 out of 10 would be automatically excluded from participating further and would simply have to await their fate in silence. Have you seen this morass? Ugh! Voceditenore ( talk) 15:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank You | |
Thank you for participating in my topic ban. This really is a genuine thank you, no sarcasm is intended. I was in the wrong and I accept that. Rotten regard 23:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "neutral". I wonder if you'd like to discuss any concerns of yours, or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again. Cheers, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, I prefer to think that this was unintentional. Can you confirm that to be the case? Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
What actually happened to Jehochman's signature was that when I copied it to use it in a ping link, I had actually pressed the 'X' key. Realising that a few moments later, I used 'V' to put it it back, not realising that in the meantime I had something new in my clipboard which contained the word bureaucracy which I hate typing because I always get it wrong. When I pressed 'Show preview' I checked the body of my text but I didn't check to see if I had made another mistake in the sig. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I happen to think you'd be a great arb. Worm is right about not needing to know all the procedures and processes, that's what the clerks and the arbs who have been there a long time are for. But it is much more of a commitment than just being an admin. There's much less "bystander effect" because there are literally only 12-15 people who can handle any given issue. I would have done two years, but facing the possibility of a total of three years was too much, and I won't run if I don't think I would serve my full term. We Alaskans are a little touchy on that subject ever since Sarah Palin ran out of the governor's office to go be on TV.
This situation right now is exactly how I wound up on the committee in the first place. I hadn't intended to run but I didn't see enough qualified candidates to fill the available spots, so I nominated myself. Lo and behold, at the eleventh hour a dozen more people also nominated themselves, yet somehow I got in... barely. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I saw the last minute attempt while clicking recent changes, you could still run for the position as you created your statement before the deadline. Thanks Secret account 00:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
At [2] you said, "If you have a different proposal for Community Desysoping, start your own RfC.". I would like to propose decreasing the sysops' tenure to, say, one or two years. What are the steps for me to pipe this to an RFC? Gryllida ( talk) 05:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I am favorably inclined to the Admin Review Board but wanted to ask a couple questions before weighing in. I am not asking on that page, because they may cross the border into mechanics, and I do not want to do that.
I am unclear whether you envision the BARC to be a subset of the Bureaucrats, or if they would operate as a committee of the whole? If a proper subset, I'm happy to wait for general agreement (or not) on the concept, before fine-tuning the selection process, but if you were contemplating that the group as a whole would take on this process, I may feel differently than if there is a defined committee, much smaller than the whole group. (one of the reasons I lean support is the hope that this group would have a timelier response to issues, which may be hopeless if all 34 are involved)
On a related point, did you have an opinion on whether the committee would be crats only? I would be supportive of a committee structure with some non-crats, specifically more than one non-admin. Exact makeup is beyond the scope at this time, but if the answer to the first question is the crat group as a whole, it is unlikely you were thinking of including non-admins.
Did you run any of this by any of the crats? I understand that you might have had private conversations, and may not be able to share details, but if the crats say “no way, no how” it doesn't sound like a good use of time to even discuss. I hope they would be willing to take on this task, and it won't surprise me if they are less than enthusiastic about jumping on it, but I would like to hear that they wouldn't reject it out of hand.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Sustained vile attacks on user:Malik Shabazz's page. Im rollbacking here in real time. Please can you act quick Irondome ( talk) 05:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I wish to inform you that I only have a new account but I am a "Veteran" Wikipedia editor. I lost the information for the other account and somehow forgot the password. Thank you for your concern, but I do fully understand the guidlines for article inclusion and deletion. I apologize if my methods have offended you but, my criteria for article inclusion does follow the Wikipedia but may slightly differ from yours as I tend to be slightly lenient when it comes to new editors to encourage them to stay on Wikipedia and not scare them off. Forgive me if my methods have in any way offended yours, but I have been with Wikipedia for many years and understand all of the guidliness and procedures.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration, STJMLCC ( talk) 21:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance, but if you are worried that I may have mulitple accounts I can assure you I don't. The other account, as previously stated, was lost to failure of my memory. If you wish to check my IP adress for multiple account usage, please do so by all means! I also have I question that needs clarification that the uploading and copyrihgt documents did not ansnwer my question adequately. I figuered I would ask you seing you obviously have an unmeasurable ammount of expierence and are an Adminstrator, are files (images from .edu sites that are posted under an education use license (not the technical term I do not know the technical term) useable in Wikipedia. I wish to get confirmation of this befor posting an image that I have for use on Wikipedia. (What I mean by education use license is a license allowing for an image to be re-used for educational puropses.)
Thank you for all of your assistance and consideratioin, STJMLCC ( talk) 15:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
See my comment at User talk:Waynejayes. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder. Have a nice day :) -- Zhantongz ( talk) 12:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your protection note "Can;t understand why the protection isn't working", what is not working? DMacks ( talk) 03:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung. Do you find my attitudal and editing behaviours to be acceptable for a possible ad run? What areas should I be working on to reinforce any run? cheers Irondome ( talk) 04:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Some high school article have no reliable sources, and looks like advert than encyclopaedic content. Please familiarise yourself with hidden advert. @NnAs ( talk) 06:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Kudpung,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether it should be deleted. Your comments are welcome.
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE9A:860:DD6B:693A:ACF:B874 ( talk) 18:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I want to offer my abject apology for my challenge to your block at WT:RFA. I had no idea it would lead to such a pile-on. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, is it possible to unblock creation for /info/en/?search=Gi2C_Group ? We have followed instructions from moderators and we wrote the article so it respects wikipedia guidelines. Regards
Hi I tried to correct the link for Ryan_Johnson_(actor) on the Somerset page - can you unlock the page so I can do this? The link now directs to 6 different Ryan Johnsons
THanks! Jookieapc ( talk) 14:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
In 2012, you create-protected the page Thomas Ridgewell. Recently, I stumbled across an article at WP:AFC called Draft:Tomka (which should actually be Thomas Ridgewell because Tomka is only a nickname). I went over the sources, and although some were very brief mentions, some had a paragraph dedicated to him and some had a whole article about him. I think his notability increased over the past two years and is ready to become an article. If you could please help me move the article, that would be great. Thanks, ΤheQ Editor Talk? 02:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi!
I was just writing to ask why you deleted the La Sera page... My name is Katy Goodman, I played in the band Vivian Girls /info/en/?search=Vivian_Girls , and La Sera is my other band. We have 3 albums out on Hardly Art records, (on itunes, spotify, etc), have songs in TV shows and commercials, etc. The other associated acts for Vivian Girls (the babies, upset) both have their own pages, so it makes sense for La Sera to also have a page.
Here is our artist page: http://www.hardlyart.com/lasera.html
What can I do to create a wikipedia page for La Sera? I know that some people have previously tried to create it, but it keeps getting deleted.
Thanks! Katy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickballkaty ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey!
ok so here is the updated version of the article, with lots of references and things... /info/en/?search=User:Thriley/La_Sera_(draft) . can we make it into the official "La Sera" wikipedia page?
thanks!! Katy 76.94.196.234 ( talk) 19:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
La Sera has been featured many times in numerous reliable sources such as The New York Times and The Washington Post over the past four years. Proper citations are included in the article. It seems only right that such a longstanding and influential group have a page. Thriley ( talk) 10:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, last year, you said not to tag G13 eligible submissions to me ( here) - Can you have a look at my contribs and am I ok to tag them? (Yes, I know I don't have to ask, but just wanted to be sure) — revimsg 15:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Wel, I think the reasons for that were obvious at the time but your experience may changed since. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, can you please un-salt this page, notability can now be established. Cheers, Nik the stunned 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Draft:La Sera appears to meet WP:N, can you please unblock La Sera so we can publish it? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 02:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your comments: First, I apologize in advance if any of what I say is already well-known by you; I suspect that at least in part it is. However, in the interest of avoiding misunderstandings, I thought I would provide some feedback on your comments and style of discussion.
I confess to feeling the same way as when others have interacted with you in the past (including me once before). I've reviewed the material you presented and I highly appreciate the research that has gone into it. I agree with lots of it, but there are others who don't, or haven't read it, and just telling them "go read this" hasn't worked for many of them. If the gap from dissatisfaction to action is going to be bridged, new ways of fostering support will have to be tried.
If there is someone interested in searching for candidates, even if we already have a lot of data from past searches, it would be nice for them to continue to add to that data set, for a number of reasons: new, fresh data is usually good to have, and it helps provide an attainable objective for the person doing the legwork. Even if they don't manage to attract some new admin candidates, or if their efforts fade out, they can still feel a sense of accomplishment in adding to our understanding of the issues. Getting people to have some investment in working on the problem and determining solutions is a good way to build consensus. Lastly, it is a typical good practice to review the results of your work after it is done, no matter how many times you've done it already.
Unfortunately, I personally feel the tone in some of your comments is somewhat dismissive of the courses of action suggested by others, based on an assumption that others have not benefited from previous analysis and investigation. This is discouraging, particularly in a volunteer environment where people tend to do tasks that they want to do. For me, because I strongly respect the investment you've made in the area, I just say to myself, OK, if others don't wish to discuss my suggestions, that's fine: I'll just move on to other things. I don't know if this is what you intend: to try to find a group of persons whose ways of approaching the problem align with yours,(*) so you can collectively join efforts in finding solutions. I understand if this is the case, and it can be a good way to harness the efforts of a set of editors interested in promoting changes.
(*) Note this does not mean this group would all have the same opinions as you; just that they are generally inclined to tackle an issue in the same way as you do.
I thank you for the time you have spent in studying, thinking about, and developing ideas about some of Wikipedia's key shortcomings, and I recognize by contrast my views do not have the same weight behind them. Accordingly, I am personally happy to let you proceed with the initiatives that are satisfactory to you, and I believe Wikipedia will be better for it. In the interest of helping your plans succeed, though, I believe adopting a slightly more inclusive style of interaction will garner support from a broader set of persons, which will strengthen any resulting consensus. isaacl ( talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, thank you for the "thank you" [1] . If I were the Empress of Arbcomia, I would decree that no party be allowed to submit evidence against anyone else until they had done a thorough examination of conscience and listed all the things they had personally done (with diffs) which led to and/or exacerbated the situation which had landed everyone there. They would be judged on technical merit, artistic impression, and self-awareness. Anyone with a score of less than 6 out of 10 would be automatically excluded from participating further and would simply have to await their fate in silence. Have you seen this morass? Ugh! Voceditenore ( talk) 15:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank You | |
Thank you for participating in my topic ban. This really is a genuine thank you, no sarcasm is intended. I was in the wrong and I accept that. Rotten regard 23:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC) |
A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "neutral". I wonder if you'd like to discuss any concerns of yours, or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again. Cheers, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, I prefer to think that this was unintentional. Can you confirm that to be the case? Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
What actually happened to Jehochman's signature was that when I copied it to use it in a ping link, I had actually pressed the 'X' key. Realising that a few moments later, I used 'V' to put it it back, not realising that in the meantime I had something new in my clipboard which contained the word bureaucracy which I hate typing because I always get it wrong. When I pressed 'Show preview' I checked the body of my text but I didn't check to see if I had made another mistake in the sig. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I happen to think you'd be a great arb. Worm is right about not needing to know all the procedures and processes, that's what the clerks and the arbs who have been there a long time are for. But it is much more of a commitment than just being an admin. There's much less "bystander effect" because there are literally only 12-15 people who can handle any given issue. I would have done two years, but facing the possibility of a total of three years was too much, and I won't run if I don't think I would serve my full term. We Alaskans are a little touchy on that subject ever since Sarah Palin ran out of the governor's office to go be on TV.
This situation right now is exactly how I wound up on the committee in the first place. I hadn't intended to run but I didn't see enough qualified candidates to fill the available spots, so I nominated myself. Lo and behold, at the eleventh hour a dozen more people also nominated themselves, yet somehow I got in... barely. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I saw the last minute attempt while clicking recent changes, you could still run for the position as you created your statement before the deadline. Thanks Secret account 00:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
At [2] you said, "If you have a different proposal for Community Desysoping, start your own RfC.". I would like to propose decreasing the sysops' tenure to, say, one or two years. What are the steps for me to pipe this to an RFC? Gryllida ( talk) 05:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I am favorably inclined to the Admin Review Board but wanted to ask a couple questions before weighing in. I am not asking on that page, because they may cross the border into mechanics, and I do not want to do that.
I am unclear whether you envision the BARC to be a subset of the Bureaucrats, or if they would operate as a committee of the whole? If a proper subset, I'm happy to wait for general agreement (or not) on the concept, before fine-tuning the selection process, but if you were contemplating that the group as a whole would take on this process, I may feel differently than if there is a defined committee, much smaller than the whole group. (one of the reasons I lean support is the hope that this group would have a timelier response to issues, which may be hopeless if all 34 are involved)
On a related point, did you have an opinion on whether the committee would be crats only? I would be supportive of a committee structure with some non-crats, specifically more than one non-admin. Exact makeup is beyond the scope at this time, but if the answer to the first question is the crat group as a whole, it is unlikely you were thinking of including non-admins.
Did you run any of this by any of the crats? I understand that you might have had private conversations, and may not be able to share details, but if the crats say “no way, no how” it doesn't sound like a good use of time to even discuss. I hope they would be willing to take on this task, and it won't surprise me if they are less than enthusiastic about jumping on it, but I would like to hear that they wouldn't reject it out of hand.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Sustained vile attacks on user:Malik Shabazz's page. Im rollbacking here in real time. Please can you act quick Irondome ( talk) 05:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I wish to inform you that I only have a new account but I am a "Veteran" Wikipedia editor. I lost the information for the other account and somehow forgot the password. Thank you for your concern, but I do fully understand the guidlines for article inclusion and deletion. I apologize if my methods have offended you but, my criteria for article inclusion does follow the Wikipedia but may slightly differ from yours as I tend to be slightly lenient when it comes to new editors to encourage them to stay on Wikipedia and not scare them off. Forgive me if my methods have in any way offended yours, but I have been with Wikipedia for many years and understand all of the guidliness and procedures.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration, STJMLCC ( talk) 21:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance, but if you are worried that I may have mulitple accounts I can assure you I don't. The other account, as previously stated, was lost to failure of my memory. If you wish to check my IP adress for multiple account usage, please do so by all means! I also have I question that needs clarification that the uploading and copyrihgt documents did not ansnwer my question adequately. I figuered I would ask you seing you obviously have an unmeasurable ammount of expierence and are an Adminstrator, are files (images from .edu sites that are posted under an education use license (not the technical term I do not know the technical term) useable in Wikipedia. I wish to get confirmation of this befor posting an image that I have for use on Wikipedia. (What I mean by education use license is a license allowing for an image to be re-used for educational puropses.)
Thank you for all of your assistance and consideratioin, STJMLCC ( talk) 15:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
See my comment at User talk:Waynejayes. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder. Have a nice day :) -- Zhantongz ( talk) 12:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your protection note "Can;t understand why the protection isn't working", what is not working? DMacks ( talk) 03:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung. Do you find my attitudal and editing behaviours to be acceptable for a possible ad run? What areas should I be working on to reinforce any run? cheers Irondome ( talk) 04:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Some high school article have no reliable sources, and looks like advert than encyclopaedic content. Please familiarise yourself with hidden advert. @NnAs ( talk) 06:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Kudpung,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether it should be deleted. Your comments are welcome.
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE9A:860:DD6B:693A:ACF:B874 ( talk) 18:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I want to offer my abject apology for my challenge to your block at WT:RFA. I had no idea it would lead to such a pile-on. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)