Hello! Just to give you a heads up, the subject of intelligence of fictional characters is something covered in scholarly sources, such as Patricia M. Puccinelli's Yardsticks: retarded characters and their roles in fiction (P. Lang, 1995). Anyway, I believe the article can be dramatically revised to be about the intelligence of fictional characters as depicted in fiction and as such believe that we can use some of the verifiable information from that article for that purpose. Again, what I propose is an article based entirely on such secondary sources as Puccinelli's mentioned above and that only lists those IQs of characters also verified in other secondary sources. Please reconsider this nomination so that we use what we can from it for these purposes and as others know I do tend to follow up my ideas for such rewrites (see rescue barnstars on my userpage). Thank you for time and consideration. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 22:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I know I said this already, but I totally endorse your decision to block the IP, thanks for clearing that situation up. What was I thinking suggesting keeping him unblocked? That's the sort of editor we don't need on Wikipedia. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
(from WT:RfA)My take is this. Recall is a voluntary process. You should vote for admins you trust, if you don't trust them then a voluntary recall means very little and should not effect your vote. Arbcom should apply the same standards to administrators. This should not be based off of campaign promises, but rather the communities expected behavior of all admins. Chillum 16:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I find a candidate always falls into one of 4 categories:
These four options have always been plenty. A promise made by the candidate to be open to voluntary recall means very little to me if I do not already trust the person.
If they are unclear about their recall criteria I almost never support as for all I know they could make the criteria in such a way as to compromise their ability to do their job. If they make their recall criteria clear and it is based on an administrators behavior in respect to community expectations then I may support. More often than not though recall criteria is tantamount to a vote by the masses. Chillum 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
A discussion about Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Vandalism-only_account. -- IRP ☎ 22:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Thanks, I appreciate it.
I have to say I'm actually a bit surprised. I had some harsh words for slakr just now, and I'm starting to think I should have toned them down. rspεεr ( talk) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Did you seriously block him because of his user name? ~ Richmond96 t • c 03:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but what he did was very much canvassing, given that the obvious intent of the message was to change or influence a decision to fall his way, whatever rationale he gave or 'neutral' language he used. I believ unblocking him was a mistake. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 07:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply
-- IRP ☎ 23:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply
In a cesspool of hostility and discrimination against a particular ethnic group, your supposed lack of prejudice and your yucky, tendentious hype seems ueber-selective, ueber-hypocritical. Have a close look at your mirror, you ueber-hypocrite. 206.245.153.77 ( talk) 15:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Shouldn't I recommend him to apply for username change.-- yousaf465' 15:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes the ketchup guy, bit of off,doesn't seems right.Might not be violating policy.-- yousaf465' 15:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi, thanks for your help with the user Shannon Rose. According to this edit [2] on an article's AFD discussion, he's contacted another user to refer to the old edit. Is that okay or should I notify the blocking admin? Thanks, Spring12 ( talk) 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Notified. Gracias, Spring12 ( talk) 21:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm puzzled by your protection of her talk page. Your edit summary reads: using talk page for personal attacks while blocked for personal attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Shannon_Rose&curid=16435032&diff=281767417&oldid=281766706
Certainly she's blocked for personal attacks and the like, and probably rightly so. And the edit to which you refer is questionable. However, I see no personal attack within it, other than in the edit summary, in which she addresses you as a "dickhead". Of course addressing anyone as a dickhead is a no-no, but (i) preventing somebody blocked from editing her own user page is an unusual measure, (ii) it's unsurprising (if regrettable) that somebody who is blocked from editing anywhere else and who has a long and carefully composed message deleted will call the person deleting it a "dickhead", and (iii) as the person called "dickhead" (however unfairly), you're not the best choice of person then to shut her up.
I suggest that you unprotect her page, and give her a clear warning about what she can't do. Further, her demand (however tiresome and rude) for citation of a policy page telling her that she can't do this or that is a legitimate one. As it is, I have rather often seen editors blocked for misbehavior on subject XYZ writing further on subject XYZ on their own talk pages while blocked; indeed, on occasion I have encouraged them to do just this (but of course to do it in a persuasive and inoffensive fashion). -- Hoary ( talk) 01:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't know what she'll do.
You posted some excellent messages on her talk page; I couldn't have done better. It's a great pity that she didn't digest them. It's also unfortunate, or worse, that she has been merrily calling people idiots, dickheads and so forth in her edit summaries. You write Since you have decided to use your talk page for personal attacks while blocked for personal attack [...]. However, I've just gone through all her edits to her talk page made after she was blocked, and I still cannot see any personal attack other than the one word uttered to you. Further, if she was wrong to write a message addressed primarily to me and to get somebody else to notify me of this, fine, she was wrong. However, the template attached to her page does not tell her that she can't comment there on anything that she wants, and it links to a long page on "blocking policy" in which such an instruction is inconspicuous if present at all. (Frankly, I can't be bothered to look for it, even though I'm experienced and unflustered.)
So I'd write a message pointing her to a policy page telling her what she may and may not do, post it, and then unprotect. If she doesn't get the message, reprotect. If you think it's likely that she'll abuse the page but you don't want to keep an eye on it -- because you're going to bed, or because (like me) you have RL things to be getting on with -- then post an alert at WP:ANI or wherever. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Thank you. Of course, unprotecting may turn out to be a mistake (and if so, the mistake is much less yours than mine); we'll see. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I think he's done with this for the time being, neh?-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Hey Chillum. You seem to be asking me to reconsider the length of the block. I'm happy to do this of course. Is there a particular reason the block length is too long. I didn't think the time I gave, when I gave it, was too long given the user's recent record. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, the normal practise is to double or double and round the length of the most recent block. I doubled and rounded here, mainly because his record is so bad. And really, my thinking wasn't much more sophisticated on the point than that. 55 hours, next without rounding up is 110 (=4 days, 14 hours), I gave him a week. Not really a big deal if I reduce it from 7 to 4 days, esp. if he can be encouraged to be productive or accept a restriction of some kind. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Note, he has volunteered to accept restrictions, noting Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DreamGuy_2. As I said, I'm happy to consider restrictions. Your input on the specific points would be valued. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
CHILLUM Chillum what is a troll? and thanks for unblocking me —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMJTHEJOBROS ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
But just for future reference what is a troll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMJTHEJOBROS ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Hello! Just to give you a heads up, the subject of intelligence of fictional characters is something covered in scholarly sources, such as Patricia M. Puccinelli's Yardsticks: retarded characters and their roles in fiction (P. Lang, 1995). Anyway, I believe the article can be dramatically revised to be about the intelligence of fictional characters as depicted in fiction and as such believe that we can use some of the verifiable information from that article for that purpose. Again, what I propose is an article based entirely on such secondary sources as Puccinelli's mentioned above and that only lists those IQs of characters also verified in other secondary sources. Please reconsider this nomination so that we use what we can from it for these purposes and as others know I do tend to follow up my ideas for such rewrites (see rescue barnstars on my userpage). Thank you for time and consideration. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 22:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I know I said this already, but I totally endorse your decision to block the IP, thanks for clearing that situation up. What was I thinking suggesting keeping him unblocked? That's the sort of editor we don't need on Wikipedia. Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
(from WT:RfA)My take is this. Recall is a voluntary process. You should vote for admins you trust, if you don't trust them then a voluntary recall means very little and should not effect your vote. Arbcom should apply the same standards to administrators. This should not be based off of campaign promises, but rather the communities expected behavior of all admins. Chillum 16:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I find a candidate always falls into one of 4 categories:
These four options have always been plenty. A promise made by the candidate to be open to voluntary recall means very little to me if I do not already trust the person.
If they are unclear about their recall criteria I almost never support as for all I know they could make the criteria in such a way as to compromise their ability to do their job. If they make their recall criteria clear and it is based on an administrators behavior in respect to community expectations then I may support. More often than not though recall criteria is tantamount to a vote by the masses. Chillum 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
A discussion about Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Vandalism-only_account. -- IRP ☎ 22:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Thanks, I appreciate it.
I have to say I'm actually a bit surprised. I had some harsh words for slakr just now, and I'm starting to think I should have toned them down. rspεεr ( talk) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Did you seriously block him because of his user name? ~ Richmond96 t • c 03:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but what he did was very much canvassing, given that the obvious intent of the message was to change or influence a decision to fall his way, whatever rationale he gave or 'neutral' language he used. I believ unblocking him was a mistake. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 07:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply
-- IRP ☎ 23:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply
In a cesspool of hostility and discrimination against a particular ethnic group, your supposed lack of prejudice and your yucky, tendentious hype seems ueber-selective, ueber-hypocritical. Have a close look at your mirror, you ueber-hypocrite. 206.245.153.77 ( talk) 15:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Shouldn't I recommend him to apply for username change.-- yousaf465' 15:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes the ketchup guy, bit of off,doesn't seems right.Might not be violating policy.-- yousaf465' 15:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi, thanks for your help with the user Shannon Rose. According to this edit [2] on an article's AFD discussion, he's contacted another user to refer to the old edit. Is that okay or should I notify the blocking admin? Thanks, Spring12 ( talk) 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Notified. Gracias, Spring12 ( talk) 21:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm puzzled by your protection of her talk page. Your edit summary reads: using talk page for personal attacks while blocked for personal attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Shannon_Rose&curid=16435032&diff=281767417&oldid=281766706
Certainly she's blocked for personal attacks and the like, and probably rightly so. And the edit to which you refer is questionable. However, I see no personal attack within it, other than in the edit summary, in which she addresses you as a "dickhead". Of course addressing anyone as a dickhead is a no-no, but (i) preventing somebody blocked from editing her own user page is an unusual measure, (ii) it's unsurprising (if regrettable) that somebody who is blocked from editing anywhere else and who has a long and carefully composed message deleted will call the person deleting it a "dickhead", and (iii) as the person called "dickhead" (however unfairly), you're not the best choice of person then to shut her up.
I suggest that you unprotect her page, and give her a clear warning about what she can't do. Further, her demand (however tiresome and rude) for citation of a policy page telling her that she can't do this or that is a legitimate one. As it is, I have rather often seen editors blocked for misbehavior on subject XYZ writing further on subject XYZ on their own talk pages while blocked; indeed, on occasion I have encouraged them to do just this (but of course to do it in a persuasive and inoffensive fashion). -- Hoary ( talk) 01:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't know what she'll do.
You posted some excellent messages on her talk page; I couldn't have done better. It's a great pity that she didn't digest them. It's also unfortunate, or worse, that she has been merrily calling people idiots, dickheads and so forth in her edit summaries. You write Since you have decided to use your talk page for personal attacks while blocked for personal attack [...]. However, I've just gone through all her edits to her talk page made after she was blocked, and I still cannot see any personal attack other than the one word uttered to you. Further, if she was wrong to write a message addressed primarily to me and to get somebody else to notify me of this, fine, she was wrong. However, the template attached to her page does not tell her that she can't comment there on anything that she wants, and it links to a long page on "blocking policy" in which such an instruction is inconspicuous if present at all. (Frankly, I can't be bothered to look for it, even though I'm experienced and unflustered.)
So I'd write a message pointing her to a policy page telling her what she may and may not do, post it, and then unprotect. If she doesn't get the message, reprotect. If you think it's likely that she'll abuse the page but you don't want to keep an eye on it -- because you're going to bed, or because (like me) you have RL things to be getting on with -- then post an alert at WP:ANI or wherever. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Thank you. Of course, unprotecting may turn out to be a mistake (and if so, the mistake is much less yours than mine); we'll see. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I think he's done with this for the time being, neh?-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Hey Chillum. You seem to be asking me to reconsider the length of the block. I'm happy to do this of course. Is there a particular reason the block length is too long. I didn't think the time I gave, when I gave it, was too long given the user's recent record. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, the normal practise is to double or double and round the length of the most recent block. I doubled and rounded here, mainly because his record is so bad. And really, my thinking wasn't much more sophisticated on the point than that. 55 hours, next without rounding up is 110 (=4 days, 14 hours), I gave him a week. Not really a big deal if I reduce it from 7 to 4 days, esp. if he can be encouraged to be productive or accept a restriction of some kind. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Note, he has volunteered to accept restrictions, noting Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DreamGuy_2. As I said, I'm happy to consider restrictions. Your input on the specific points would be valued. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
CHILLUM Chillum what is a troll? and thanks for unblocking me —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMJTHEJOBROS ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
But just for future reference what is a troll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMJTHEJOBROS ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply