User talk:Mackensen/Archive8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

The Eye

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

Browser[edit]

Hi, which browser do you use? Arniep 01:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins ignoring policy[edit]

I saw your comments on the TFD page for Admins Ignoring Policy. They seemed very sincere, and you said you couldn't understand why people vote "keep" for a "blatant attack template". As a Keep voter, and someone who has a (subst'd and modified) version of the template on his own userpage, I'd like to try and explain my rationale.

I'm basing my "keep" vote on three things. First, admins are human beings. Second, the admins do not own Wikipedia. When they are appointed, the public says (among other things) "we trust you to follow consensus when deleting articles, and in cases of patent nonsense (and the like--you know the CSD criteria) to use your own personal judgement to speedily delete. We also trust you to follow the rules, but to recognize when to ignore them." That's not a license to just do whatever they please with the project--they must always behave in a manner befitting the betterment of the encyclopedia. None of this, I'm sure, strikes you as false, unfair, or unreasonable in the slightest.

The third thing I base my keep vote on is that there have been and there are admins who abuse their power. This is unfortunate, but true, and I'm positive that you agree that there are some. (Remember, admins are human, subject to the same pride, arrogance and fallability as all humans.) So, with all that behind us, let's take a look at your arguments. (It'd be best if you had the TFD page open in another window to see what the hay I'm talking about here. =P)

The issue at hand is most certainly not product over process. I respect you--really, I do--but when a strong consensus of editors supports the page as is, who in the heck are you to repeatedly try to override it? If we wanted to say that we opposed those who supported product over process, we would say that. But our consensus (not "ownership", consensus) favors the version without that. Personally, I wouldn't care so much if admins occasionally favored product over process--actually, I expect it from them. But when process is totally ignored, time and time again, in pursuit of a "product" which seems desireable to them but to very few bystanders (which is happening more and more)... now, that annoys me.

Again, I'm not painting all admins with the same brush... and yet, I am. If you personally have deliberately ignored policy in pursuit of your own goals, I'm annoyed with you. If not, I'm not! That's all that the template is saying! (Actually, your preferred version is more of an attack template, because virtually all admins favor product over process at times. Deliberately ignoring process is something different.)

So, do you get why it's not an attack template? It's no more divisive than an "Anti-Vandalism" userbox; vandalism is bad, but a "power-tripping" admin (to use your phrase) can do far, far more damage to the encyclopedia. And, yes, we do believe that there are some admins who lose sight of Wikipedia's goals (which, I believe, do not include "make the least divisive userpages possible") and go after less important things (well, at least I believe that). If there weren't, none of them would be contesting this userbox, because they would all be off improving articles. Right?

So, basically, I do respect you, and have no reason to be upset with you (and I hope it doesn't sound like I am!), and I hope now you can respect the position that I'm (and, I believe, many others are) coming from. This template is not directed at all admins as currently written. It's not even directed at admins, per se; it just means that the user likes to see Wikipedia's most respected citizens abide by its laws. In any case, thanks for your time... and happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People with userboxes don't have an axe to grind (in general; I'm sure there are expections)... it's mostly that they want to express themselves. This userbox isn't a bad way to do that. It's not "factionalism" all the time--am I suddenly in a "faction" because I have a userbox that states that I drive a lousy piece of junk? Of course not. Why, then, am I in a faction because I say that I'd appreciate it if the admins that don't care about process would start caring about it? That's what I don't understand. Take a look at the patron saint of administrators' userpage. There's a lot of self-expression there, and I'm sure no one slaims that things like that shouldn't be allowed. Why shouldn't normal users be allowed that same self-expression? I'm sure that some web developers who take such things too seriously don't appreciate it when Jimbo says that Wikipedia "makes the internet not suck". I'm sure that some administrators who take such things too seriously don't appreciate it when a userbox says that the user's annoyed at admins ignoring process. I would strongly advise you to take these things less seriously, but that's your prerogative.
On the matter of respect... I think that admins need to realize that just because they are the most-respected Wikipedians (and they are), they are not the ONLY respected Wikipedians. When a clear consensus of non-admins gets shot down by a couple of admins, that really, really, really annoys some people. And, therefore, we have a template referring to the struggle.
I do believe strongly (though it hurts me to see it happening) that the Wikipedia climate is becoming "admins vs. normal users". I don't want to point fingers at either "side", but I do think it's becoming alarming. Cooler heads do need to prevail. My thoughts? It's awfully hard for one side to remain cool when the other is throwing process to the winds to pursue their own goals and speedily-deleting userboxes. Your thoughts? (Oh, and no need to apologize about a long note. I appreciated the thought. I hope I haven't seemed too angry or rude here!) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA/Christopherlin[edit]

Thanks for supporting me in my recent RfA. Unfortunately, it ended (22/11/8) without consensus. I hope you'll keep me in mind in the future. --Christopherlin 16:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for articles to work on?[edit]

Hello, Mackensen. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 16:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving you a Wiki Wiffle Bat[edit]

For this fine discussion of what's gone wrong on Wikipedia. Let's just go down the checklist:

  1. You're definitely cool and awesome (else you wouldn't have been elected to the arbcom);
  2. Your comment had "I AM LOGICAL" pasted all over it, but maybe that's just me;
  3. You've never changed your position on this, AFAIK. (Not to defend stubbornness, but I believe in changing one's mind only when one realises the facts have changed and/or the original decision was made due to lack of information.)

I am thus pleased to award you this Wiffle Bat. Way to go! Johnleemk | Talk 18:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

 Thank you!
Hi Mackensen/Archive8, thank you for your support in my RfA: it passed with a final tally of 55/1/2. If you want a hand with anything, please gimme a shout. Again, thanks! – JDoorjam Talk 20:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

RFC[edit]

You might be interested in viewing this rfc for the Cuba Pov vandal you have been involved with. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/205.240.227.15 --Colle||Talk-- 23:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please explain...[edit]

That message was placed on a user talk page by another user and I don't see why it was reverted in the first place. However, if there is/was a consensus to remove it, I apologise. JSIN 21:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the message was a personal attack, but I see your point about his being gone. I'll contact the user who wrote that comment and ask him to make a decision on whether to revert it. I hope this is satisfactory to you. JSIN 22:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Menzies Campbell[edit]

I've unprotected. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr block[edit]

He was blocked because he reverted the same little part over again. However, you are correct that it was not an exact 3rr. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No protection won't be necessary right now. I blocked Irish just to be fair and was perhaps a little harsh on him. Netscott one the other hand clearly violated 3rr. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tony Blair Vandalism[edit]

I believe that there should be no type of vandalism at all. So the edit should not stand. That's my view on it. CharlesM 03:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes[edit]

I've left comments at both the UK Parliament and Peerage WikiProjects, regarding succession box style. With the new modifications of Template:S-reg and the modifications I've proposed (see User talk:KuatofKDY#Succession templates) to Template:S-ttl, I think User:KuatofKDY's "headers" are ready to go into production. Since you've shown interest in these styling policies before, I thought I'd solicit your opinion directly. Choess 05:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vote Stacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan[edit]

Hi, you may want to address this. --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

... for weighing in at User talk:Stevepeterson. Appreciated. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I find it ridiculus, I'm sorry... And I'm not afraid of your warnings, they are not sockpuppets of mine. If they want to make the vbotes invalid, at least they shuldn't block my friends: Stevepeterson (236 edits), ALEKSANDAR (47 edits), Arnegjor (82 edits), Steliosmpikakis (12 edits), Svetlyo (136 edits), but almost exclusively to the pages of the former monarchs of Greece(thats not true we are all editting simmilar sites because we are friends, there are plenty of other sites we have been editing). A sockpuppet of 136 edits??? If all edits were mine I would have been an administrator by now Stevepeterson 11:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I[edit]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006
Project news
From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator

Current proposals

delivered by Loopy e 05:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Request[edit]

Hi Mackensen,

Awhile back you found out that a user was using sockpuppets, and blocked them. I was wondering if you could do something similar again - please check if Tommiks (talk · contribs), Karabekir (talk · contribs), and OttomanReference (talk · contribs) are the same person. I'd really like to know, thanks. --Khoikhoi 08:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 17:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disraeli[edit]

The user finally posted the source for the claim [1] but it doesn't look like substantive proof to me. It is also pretty meaningless as most Italian Jews probably had some ancestors who left Iberia after the expulsions. Arniep 23:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Jackson1[edit]

You need to fix the cat link on the bottom. I'd do it myself but I'm not an admin. It says Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Jason Gastrich|BryanW4C

Thanks. Harvestdancer 22:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Talleyrand[edit]

Okay, I see what's happened. Where do you want the page to be? Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's fast; thanks – and apologies for my botched move. I was trying to move the page to Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, but didn't spot I'd missed entering the first "C" of the name. Hope the situation easily retrievable. Thanks again, David Kernow 03:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I think it's all settled now. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – maybe time for me to take a break... Best wishes, David 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent refactoring to distinguish new users[edit]

Thatcher is not a new user. You may want to move his comments over accordingly. JoshuaZ 02:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Furthermore the 24.* anon has trashed the corral entirely. I'm going to bed, too much to fix. Thatcher131 05:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROGNNTUDJUU![edit]

Hey Mackensen. My biggest reason for unblocking ROGNNTUDJUU! was a process issue: I strongly feel he should have received warning that he was on the brink of being blocked, and should have had other users recommending to him that he spend more time actually drafting the encyclopedia. He got the wrong idea about the encyclopedia from the start, and maybe if someone gives him the right idea we can turn him around. I left a message on his talk page explaining why I unblocked him, and also that I will not unblock him again if he continues to be disruptive. I've also recommended he go on a self-imposed userbox debate break, to focus on the rest of the encyclopedia. I guess I'm from the "rehabilitate" school of thought on users focused on the wrong aspects of Wiki editing. I err on the side of assuming too much good faith, perhaps. But if he still doesn't get it, by all means, block away. JDoorjam Talk 17:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Arthur Russell[edit]

Unless I'm confusing who you're taking about then I disagree User_talk:CutlerAlci12 15:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just found under Odo "On 25 June 1872 he was awarded the royal precedence of a son of a Duke." He had every reason to do this as it gave him precedence ahead of all substantive viscounts and eldest sons of Earls something being merely a UK baron would not. Somewhere at the bottom of a long list we really ought to create a warrant of precedence article for wikiAlci12 17:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

same sex marriage template[edit]

apologies for my misuse of the rollback. It won't happen again; as you say, it was my first day on the job. I shouldn't have hit that button.

As for the template itself being t1 deleteworthy, given the several admin edits in the last month of its exisence and comments on the talk page suggesting that the use of T1 in deleting this box is questioned, it shouldn't be speedied- due, as you say, to the very public debates over this matter. This box says, quite simply, "this user supports the legalization of same-sex marriage"; it doesn't seek to offend any particular group of people. as the kinks of t1 have not been ironed out, and this does not (imo) seem like a clear-cut use of t1, i really think it should have been tfd'd given the polarity of this issue.

So again, apologies for the rollback, but given the fact that there is a clear dissent in the use of t1 on this template, I firmly believe it deserves its day in tfd, that it shouldn't be speedied when several people have expressed their disagreement with this use of t1. I'm not about to restore it or anything either, i certainly have no interest in furthering my misuse of admin privelages or physically involving myself in this issue. But if we are trying to avoid further polarization, it just seems best to use tfd when t1 is not so clear cut.

thanks for the heads-up, giving me shit and keeping me in line.

--He:ah? 22:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mackensen/Archive8&oldid=1082563447"