 | This page 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. |
Leo Baeck Institute
Responded on its talk p. ` DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Three and ohhhh
Still hangin round this place I see. lol -- Endless dan and his problem 23:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I was just going by your edit summary (not sock block) and then blanking the page... no problems with the revision thereof given the talk page... Skier Dude ( talk) 23:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it okay to nominate somebody I don't know for adminship?
I decided that I would like to nominate somebody for RFA. This editor claims to be the author of 14 of these books. I do not know this editor personally; in fact I had never heard of her before today. I figure, why not? Besides, this user and me have something in common. Bwrs ( talk) 06:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it's OK if you know the person's contribs or are prepared to vet them, and the person says it's OK. I've only ever nommed one person, so I'm not an expert here.
StarM 12:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I just looked at an RFA of somebody who's being
snowballed because of low edit count and thought, well, the low edit count would give me the opportunity to look at every edit! And it turns out that if I had chosen to do that, it would have been more laborious than I thought. Nevertheless, before I nominate somebody for RFA I should vet as many of their edits as practicably possible.
Bwrs (
talk) 04:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- So long as you actually check through their edits and make sure they haven't done anything wrong, you don't have to be familiar with the candidate to nom them. Wizardman 04:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I just looked at an RFA of somebody who's being
snowballed because of low edit count and thought, well, the low edit count would give me the opportunity to look at every edit! And it turns out that if I had chosen to do that, it would have been more laborious than I thought. Nevertheless, before I nominate somebody for RFA I should vet as many of their edits as practicably possible.
Bwrs (
talk) 04:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Airtran371 block
Yea, the block could have been longer give the various forms of abuse. My problem was that in the edit waring and problems there are a few good edits. If you have other problems with this editor, do add one of the user warnings to the talk page like {{ uw-vandal3}}. If you feel that the editor is still causing problems after warnings let me know. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
| This page 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. |
Leo Baeck Institute
Responded on its talk p. ` DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Three and ohhhh
Still hangin round this place I see. lol -- Endless dan and his problem 23:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I was just going by your edit summary (not sock block) and then blanking the page... no problems with the revision thereof given the talk page... Skier Dude ( talk) 23:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it okay to nominate somebody I don't know for adminship?
I decided that I would like to nominate somebody for RFA. This editor claims to be the author of 14 of these books. I do not know this editor personally; in fact I had never heard of her before today. I figure, why not? Besides, this user and me have something in common. Bwrs ( talk) 06:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it's OK if you know the person's contribs or are prepared to vet them, and the person says it's OK. I've only ever nommed one person, so I'm not an expert here.
StarM 12:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I just looked at an RFA of somebody who's being
snowballed because of low edit count and thought, well, the low edit count would give me the opportunity to look at every edit! And it turns out that if I had chosen to do that, it would have been more laborious than I thought. Nevertheless, before I nominate somebody for RFA I should vet as many of their edits as practicably possible.
Bwrs (
talk) 04:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- So long as you actually check through their edits and make sure they haven't done anything wrong, you don't have to be familiar with the candidate to nom them. Wizardman 04:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I just looked at an RFA of somebody who's being
snowballed because of low edit count and thought, well, the low edit count would give me the opportunity to look at every edit! And it turns out that if I had chosen to do that, it would have been more laborious than I thought. Nevertheless, before I nominate somebody for RFA I should vet as many of their edits as practicably possible.
Bwrs (
talk) 04:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Airtran371 block
Yea, the block could have been longer give the various forms of abuse. My problem was that in the edit waring and problems there are a few good edits. If you have other problems with this editor, do add one of the user warnings to the talk page like {{ uw-vandal3}}. If you feel that the editor is still causing problems after warnings let me know. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)