User talk:Gator1/Archives/December 2005
 | 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. |
my RFA
Thanks much! I really appreciate the early support. Please let me know if you see a place I could be useful. Tedernst 14:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Good luck on the RfA... Jbamb 01:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Mark's RfA
Thanks for your support on my RfA. I plan to use these new buttons mostly for good, and only rarely for evil. If you've any comments about my actions as an admin, or any advice to offer (good!), please let me know. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Changing my comments
I am assuming good faith that you just wanted the {{tl:vandal}} notice to be concise, but I'd rather you don't edit my comments in such a way as you did on WP:AIV. That implies that I am agreeing with whatever the comment has been changed to, which may not nessecarily be the case. --Syrthiss 17:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not a problem :) --Syrthiss 18:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Blocking policy
Gator1, please read Wikipedia:Blocking_policy. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I have and my opinion is unchanged. A vandal who is repeatedly warned (including a supposedly final warning) and yet continues to vandalise again TODAY and did it again just 4 or 5 days ago, needs a short block. Nothing Draconian about that.Gator (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Following thru on vandal warning
I'm not an admin, so can not make good on your threat. I'm hoping you are. User:168.11.96.2 has kept right on after your last warning. Best. Bill 17:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: THANK YOU
Heh - that made me laugh. Another {{test4}}?!? It had plenty of chance to change its ways... Which Admin was it by the way? --Celestianpower hablamé 19:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
All Christians claim that the Gospels attribute divinity to Jesus. Being the son of God entials divinity. Also any scholar who claims that Jesus did not exist at all is a fool, because it is a historical fact that he was crucified, and was recorded in writings other than the Gospels. If I cannot correct inaccurate information about Jesus, then I do not want to participate in Wikipedia. It is not right. 24.106.140.254 19:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
ok i understand what you are saying... it was a compromise. it's just that the article is inconsistent since it says that the Gospels call Jesus the son of God but may not call him divine. That is a contradiction. there was no reason to fight to add that the gospels claim divinity for Jesus, because that is necessarily included in being the son of God. that is why the last time i just deleted "also" because divinity is nothing new that wasnt already covered in the previous sentence. anyway, i will stop trying to edit controversial pages since they are written by a collaboration of editors. 24.106.140.254 20:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for suggesting that i register. I would like to add more about Jesus' teachings. He taught about faith, Christian love (aka charity or selflessness) and actually demanded a higher level of morality than the Old Testament b/c he said to love not only your neighbor but your enemy as well. TheTruth12 20:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
One more thing.. if u wish to show that the Gospel claims divinity for Jesus, cite the passage where the desciples ask "show us the Father" and Jesus answers "If you have seen me you have seen the Father. I and the Father are One." I think it is John 14:8-11.
I'm somewhat new to wikipedia so im just beginning to find my way around talk pages and stuff. But i posted something in the Gospels claiming Jesus is God discussion. i dunno if anyone will read it since its an old discussion. i didnt realize so many people were determined to keep Christianity as much out of the Jesus article as they can. I will try to add some true things that will be difficult to reject, including that the Gospels claim Jesus is God. i didnt realize at first that i was going against my own teammate lol. Thanks
I'm an admin now!!
Thanks for voting on my rfa, I've becoming an admin. The final tally was 50-0-0 and I hope to do my best in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. Thanks again, --Gurubrahma 11:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Your revert at Jesus
Would you mind commenting on the Talk: page concerning this? There's a section devoted to it, at the bottom. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Admin?
Perhaps in the near future if not now, it may be a good idea to consider an admin nomination. Lose the Decency template from the bottom of your userpage as that is dead anyway. Your edits look solid: [1]--MONGO 08:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Gator:
Just wanted to say thanks for your "support" vote on my RFA. You said that adminship is no big deal, but I still hope to live up to your expectations.
All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
168.8.208.3
I gave him a short one hour block. It's a university shared IP so in an hour he'll be gone and other students can use the IP. - Tεxτurε 19:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Great thanks.Gator (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Gator. I never do get into a 3rr :) even if I work on deadly articles, but I will keep watch. Thanks for the warning. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
See my response to your Object, Thanks. Please relook at Jesus to see if you want to support it for featured article status. Thanks. Scifiintel 18:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
AMA
Hi, do you think that anything can be done to "revive" AMA? Perhaps make a list of things we can and cannot do and maybe "promote our services" as well. Izehar (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, the biggest reason we seem inactive is because we do not do the vast majority of things people ask us for. Maybe we should expand our services?Gator (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I sent a message to the Coordinator: "There seems to be some concern over whether the AMA is becoming inactive, whether we re not being clear in what services we do or do not provide or whether we should expand our services to meet the current demanded services (informal mediations, arbitrations etc.). I think you should have some say here and I for one would love to hear what you have to say on the matter. Come to my talk page.Gator (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's talk about this right here for right now and then we'll move it to the talk page if it goes anywhere.
I'll go into detail tomorrow; I have an exam tomorrow morning and I can't mess about with Wikipedia now. Here's some food for thought:
- Services provided could be listed on the main page and explained in detail on their own subpages (eg Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Informal mediation).
- Users could be invited to request a specific service on a specific issue (certain issues will need consent from all parties. For example informal mediation would be a waste of time if not all parties wanted to negotiate in that manner).
- Applications should receive an explicit acceptance or rejection, because now there are users, who made requests which are not going to be answered, are still waiting for a response. That's just cruel.
- This acceptance/rejection would have to be determined by a member vote.
- This causes problems, as most AMA members are not dedicated enough. A possible solution would be to set a deadline (eg if no one has responded to a request within 48 hours, it will be automatically rejected).
Of course, all this are just thoughts, but now the requests are mainly asking for things we cannot do. Most of them are complaining about a specific user making personal attacks or something like that. I can't help anyone with that, can you? Our services need to be defined and we need to make clear what we can and cannot to. Izehar (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I agreed to be the coordinator for the first year, after that no one seemed to be able to get an election together for a new coordinator; that does concern me as there does seem to be some apathy amongst members. I am happy to help in any way, but currently I have been working more behind the scenes doing some volunteer legal work for Wikimedia Foundation. If anyone can organize an election that would be great; also any counsel or assistance that I can give to members is always possible either via my talk page or, preferably through my email link there. Regarding the structure of the AMA, it was always felt that it was just a way for individual AMA members to make their skills known to editors who were looking for someone to advocate for them or, just give them some information about the complex dispute resolution process as Wikipedia. User:Alex756 04:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
As far as an election, I wouldn't even know where to begin, but if you (Alex) think there should be a new one, I would think it would best for you to declare it and set it up. I think that given the demand for different services than origianlly envisioned, the AMA should reevaluate there purpose. Maybe, in addition tot he AMA's original charge, we should be open to informal mediations and non-binding arbitrations. If that is the cae, I agree with Izehar, that we need to reorganize the AMA site in order to properly educate people on our servies, direct them to the correct place, and properly accept or reject requests. Further, given the current apathy among AMA memmbers, I don't think a vote on each issue would help as most would not participate and AMA members could easily be overwhelemd with having ot vote on so many requests. maybe what we should do is ask AMA members to respond to a request if they are interested and, if they do, indicate that on the AMA page. Otherwise, we should have a time limit on requests (longer than 48 hours, maybe 1 week) that should be removed as having not been accepted by an AMA member after that point. Any other thoughts? Should we move this discusson to the AMA talk page now?Gator (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and copied this to the AMA talk page for further discussion.Gator (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You;ve been nominated for adminship
Don't forget to accept the nomination and throughly answer the three Q's on the nomination page...then follow these instructions on how to list it on the nomination page!--MONGO 14:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Good answers. Now don't forget to accept the nomination!--MONGO 14:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your nom. Wish me luck.Gator (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, good luck...I think you'll do fine...I'm about to get busy so I'll check back in 12 hours or so...--MONGO 14:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm still around..looks good...always good to get BD2412 on your side...MR. NPOV--MONGO 17:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm nor sure if I fall into the group of users that you mentioned in Q.3, but if so, I think none the worse of you for that incident, and I'm really glad you stuck around (I was a little concerned at the time). Guettarda 17:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Gator1, I'm still concerned about this incident. As a courtesy, I wanted you to know that I've voiced that concern on your RFA. I think you've done some valuable things here since, and suppport for you from editors I respect greatly such as Guettarda goes a long way, but I still do have some concerns. Best · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Just wanted to take a second to say that I deeply appreciated your very gracious response, and that I thank you for it · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Gator1, I'm still concerned about this incident. As a courtesy, I wanted you to know that I've voiced that concern on your RFA. I think you've done some valuable things here since, and suppport for you from editors I respect greatly such as Guettarda goes a long way, but I still do have some concerns. Best · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Great
Glad to hear you learned something new. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- And no problem about your Rfa. You will make a good admin. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
RfA
No worries, friend,
I feel a little bad to oppose, to be honest... I look forward to supporting later, and I'll even say I halfway hope another nom. isn't necessary. I know you'll be a good admin soon; I just want to make sure the rough bits are gotten over before you get the button. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Orioane's RfA
Hey Gator1/Archives/December 2005! Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. To my amazement there were no negative or neutral votes and the result was (28/0/0). I am now an administrator so I'll try and do my best in this new position. I'll be happy to answer any comments or requests from you. Thanks one more time, Mihai -talk 20:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Your RfA
Yeah just give it a couple of months and I'd give a support. Just too soon. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Alhutch's RfA
Dear Gator1,
I'm an administrator, and I've got you to thank for it! Thanks to your support, my RfA passed 25/0. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can help you with anything. See you around the wiki, :-) Alhutch 06:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. good luck on your RfA.--Alhutch 06:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Congrats...
...on your admin nomination. Of course you'll do a wonderful job -- you're bright, hard-working, and fair. Hope others will also be inspired to follow in your footsteps. I'm only sorry that, now with a job and some new life duties, I do not have much time for writing WP artiles. I will be checking in, however.
I'm very proud of you!
paul klenk [[User talk:Paul Klenk|<sup>talk</sup>]]
SoLando's RFA
Hi Gator1, thank you for voting in support of my RFA; the result was (28-0-0 ). I hope that I am able to fulfil the expectations of an admin. If you see me mess up anywhere, have any concerns , please don't hesitate to tell me! Take care. SoLando (Talk) 09:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
PS: cute pets!
Thank you!
Many thanks for your support during my RfA – following a 30/0/0 vote I’ve now been made an admin. Do have a Jaffa Cake! Cheers, CLW 13:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Your RFA
Dear friend Gator,
Congratulations on being nominated for admin. You've garnered quite a bit of support, and that's something to be proud of.
I apologize for not feeling ready to vote for you, yet. I'm a little more stringent on the "time" aspect of a user's pre-admin experience than most. I was here for about a year and a half, first, myself. :) I like to see users be around for a year, or at least 9-10 months if possible.
But that's the only reason I'm not putting a support vote there. And if there's anything else you think I might be able to say to letter the readers of that RFA know that the BD issue is ancient history which should not affect their vote, let me know.
Good luck, and I hope your RFA passes or that I'll get the chance to vote for you again in a few months. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have asked you some questions on your RFA page. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I've answered. It's nothing personal, and I wish you well. The experience of combatting a vandal like BD777 was made an order of magnitude harder by a number of 'anti-liberal' or 'anti-Left' comments you made in support of his outlandish personal attacks. So whether you've become a more mature editor or not, my experience with you was sufficiently unpleasant that I felt I needed to make my opinions known. Next time something like that happens, you'll have an opportunity to demonstrate those sorts of acts are 'in the past'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
RFA and BigDaddy777 outside view
I'll just say one thing here: I think that Wikipedia is far too quick to hire admins, and far too reluctant to get rid of them. Whilst its easy to get made admin (people vote 50/0 a lot without even thinking), its next to impossible to ever remove them. Given the latter, I thought that I should vote oppose if there is no reason to support. You will note that I've been voting oppose on most people's RFA's, about 2:1 at the moment. When I saw yours, I was all happy to go ahead with voting oppose for you as well. Too new (although probably just enough input), not participating in AFDs or discussion of policies, and yet had a huge thing on the BigDaddy777 issue. And then I saw all of the criticism, so I thought to read it.
Now, it took guts for you to go in there against an army of people trying to say how evil BigDaddy777 was and for you to go in there and show good faith. You showed WP:AGF and presented a really good argument towards giving him another chance. That is admirable. They could have ignored you, and I am sure that they would have if they thought it was nonsense - but they didn't. And nor would I have. When I read what you wrote, I thought it was absolutely wonderful. And you wrote that early on when you didn't really know what was going on. So that's the "true you" as it were. And you helped to turn things around. People listened to you and respected you.
Of course, it then went through to Arbitration, and from the looks of it they all decided to ignore your evidence, and were angry that your kindness had stood in the way of them punishing someone for being a newbie.
I haven't totally waded through things, but it looks like either the ArbCom totally ignored your opinion, or else that BigDaddy777 did the wrong thing in the end, and your faith in him didn't work out.
Either way, I think it was the right thing to do. I think that you are the kind of person who would make a wonderful admin, who would welcome newbies, and who would not be harsh on "vandals" and people who are making innocent mistakes. The fact that other admins are upset about you acting out of kindness reflects on them, not on you. It is a sad fact of Wikipedia that newbies are not welcome and people always assume that newbies are really old baddies in disguise. And maybe they are right a lot of the time. But I still think it couldn't hurt to be nice to them once in a while. Every now and then they pay us back by doing the right thing.
I know what it was like as a newbie, both when I first created this account, as well as my various efforts on IPs in the past 3 years. You get attacked and accused of all sorts of things that are simply not true. They accuse you of being this and that and being a sock puppet, a vandal, whatever, and then they launch personal attacks at you, delete all of your articles, revert all of your edits, and the AFDs are just horrible. And I think that there are probably an awful lot of people who are being falsely accused. I think that too many users (especially admins) err on the side of paranoia, as in "if in doubt, revert/delete/block", which really creates an air of hostility. If the environment really is that bad that we need to act like that, then perhaps there should be greater security associated with registering?
In the past couple of weeks, I've got to a point where, if I see a newbie who made a good faith attempt at an article, I will write on their talk page. Now, about half of those who I wrote to had their articles deleted anyway, but they weren't upset about it then, and went on to make good things. And yes, 1 of them was a vandal, and, like you did with BigDaddy777, I had gone to stick my neck out in support of someone who ended up making me look bad.
I don't think that you should be expected to be perfect on here. I think that the issue is with regards to how you go about things. And I would like to commend you for what you did in that case, and also I hope that you are not too disheartened with how people have treated you with regards to you sticking your neck out like that. Whether you feel brave enough to do it again in the future or not, I want you to know that I think that you did the right thing. And I hope that you know that you did the right thing too. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah look, I am not going to worry about writing it on the RFA. I would probably get attacked! You are probably going to fail, and I think its unsalvagable at this point. You need like 80% to pass, and I can't see you catching up no matter what I say. I know that that sounds harsh, but there are bigger causes than that. I mean I could go in there and fight fight fight begging you to win, but you know in the end I don't really know you anyway. All I know is what I read on that article. That's it really. I mean, I've been burned a few times myself, supporting people who ended up not being so good, so I guess I'm a bit reluctant. Happy to write to you, and I voted my feelings there, but that's about it.
So what else made you feel upset? Just the RFA comments? Or was it something else as well? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Gator, c'mon man. You're a lawyer. Do you get upset everytime you argue in court because the opposing side doesn't agree with you? This is just an online encyclopedia, the equivalent of a discussion board. Weren't you the one who said "experience in Wikipedia means as much to real life as experience in dungeons and dragons"? It's really not a big deal for you to get bummed over. Even if there wasn't the BD thing, you're still relatively new here. I've been here over a year and I still don't think I'm ready to be an admin. Don't dwell in the past, just learn from it and move on. Virtually every one involved in the BD affair who is currently opposing your RfA says the same thing: try again in a few months and I'll be happy to support. Be courteous if you're going to defend the minority, try to respect Wikipedia procedures, respect your co-editors even if they disagree with you, and continue to do the excellent job in contributing to Wikipedia that you have been, and no doubt you'll be an admin soon. --kizzle 20:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words, Kizzle. I'm entitled to feel hurt, but I promise that I will continue to hold no grudges against anyone and will be ahppy to support you in an RFA if you're ever up for one (I'd vote support for all my opposition right now actually). Thanks again.Gator (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
My opposition
Gator,
I'm sorry that I felt it necessary to oppose so strongly. I feel I owe you a bit of explanation. First, 3 months is really quite a quick nomination for anyone. And, I am generally opposed for any but the most cool-headed and temperate (that's a very small percentage). Second, I really was quite distressed by your attitude that first month. I felt you displayed great disrespect to other editors and very poor judgement. I realize that Wikipedia was new to you, and you didn't really understand the culture at that time. But that's exactly my objection ... it's still somewhat new to you, though you don't realize it.
Many say that being an administrator is "no big deal". But it is a big deal when you have the power to block other users. I've seen the power used poorly. And I need to feel very comfortable that someone has great respect for the rules and processes and cultural norms here before giving that power.
To put this in perspective, I would have opposed your nominator, Mongo, for admiship at a similar point in his experience here. I have now great respect for Mongo, and wish I had noticed his recent RFA so I could have expressed my support. But, he earned that trust over quite a long period, after a somewhat rough start. I also would have opposed myself three months in. So, I can support you eventually, but it's going to take a while. Your nomination at this early point was bound to generate a fair bit of opposition given the not-distant tension. I've seen many candidates fail for much sillier things such as failure to leave good edit summaries.
I have no personal grudge; it was a couple months back, and I really don't care much about the personal quarrel. I hesitated before expressing my reservations so strongly, for fear that you'd again think it was a political thing ... it quite simply is not. Let me put it this way. If you've really come to understand the culture and norms here, you'll also understand why I oppose. It's not two months back that you were calling the RFC about BD a "joke", along with the rest of it. If you don't understand why that raises opposition two months later, you don't yet understand the culture well enough for me to support. If you do get it, then you understand why I opposed at this point. I need to see whether you turn out to be a Mongo (great) or a Keetowah (not so much). I hope that in a few months I can give a different response, based on a longer experience.
Regards,
Derex 20:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Derex. I appreciate that. Like I said over and over I held and will continue to hold no grudges against ANYONE for ANYTHING. If this fails I hope to have your support next time. See yah.Gator (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- with that attitude, you will. Derex 20:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I wanted to note that I am, for the most part, impressed with the way you are handling a difficult RFA. It won't change my vote at this time, but it does bode well for the future. However, a remark on your comment about "deserving" to be an admin ... it's not a matter of deserve, because it shouldn't be thought of as an award or an honor or such. It's quite natural at first to think of it that way, as a measure of respect or something. However, it's really more a measure of temperment. I certainly don't want to be an admin myself, because I don't have that temperment ... not that I wouldn't do a good job, but a certain measure of restraint in debate is expected of admins that doesn't suit me. So, all I'm trying to say is, don't look at not getting admin this time around as a punishment because adminship is not a reward or an honor. Derex 17:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
My RFA
Hi there Gator, I just stopped by to thank you so much for your support in my RFA. Cheers! SWD316 21:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
My recent rfa
Dear Gator1, I wanted to thank you for your support during my recent RfA. :)
--Syrthiss 22:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Your RfA
I am neutral right now for the same reasons that some of the other editors have brought up, and after I see some more evidence I will make a final decision. --King of All the Franks 23:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, you're very welcome. I wish you the best in the rest of the vote. Yes, it's not even 3:30 here. --King of All the Franks 00:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. Rmt2m 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Rmt2m
You warned him on his userpage, I warned him on his talk page. I bet he never vandalises again. Izehar (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's hope. I moved my warning to his talk apge. Thanks for the heads up.Gator (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, have you taken a look at the page. I feel very strongly that my version is better. Please help me out! Thanks. --Mb1000 17:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: the article
It's only 300-500 words in length, so it's relatively short. Yet, it was originally cluttered wih 3 photographs within the main body. WP:NOT explicitly states that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. The guidelines further suggest that photographs should be adding encyclopedic content to the article. Unfortunately, since the article is so short, the photos can't really compliment the information. (Compare with Toronto Eaton Centre, which also contains 3 photographs, but is around 1500-2000 words long).
I created a gallery; it allows a way to show the photos that Mb1000 uploaded, w/o cluttering the main text. It also makes the photographs readily available, should the article be further expanded. I could have simply removed the photos per WP:NOT, but felt that presening them within the gallery was a fair compromise.--Madchester 23:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I have since added new text material to the page, making it larger. I also resized the images so as not to overwhelm the page. I hope my new version satisfies those who "doth protest too much." :) --Mb1000 16:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, besides WP:NOT, you should also refer to Wikipedia:Images. It states that:
- "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general. A map of a battle and an picture of its aftermath would provide more information to readers.
- Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text. Similar types of images within an article often look appealing if they appear as the same pixel size."
- In its current state, the article is not long enough to support 3 images. Once again, compare this with other mall articles such as Vaughan Mills and Toronto Eaton Centre. --Madchester 18:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Blocking User:141.150.150.130 on WP:AIV
Just for the record, according to the block log, 141.150.150.130 had already been blocked for 48hrs (by BD2412) when s/he was removed from WP:AIV the first time. (See the relevant block log.) However, Hall Monitor has since undone the 48h block and replaced it with a week-long block, and I'm inclined to let that stand. - jredmond 19:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
My vote
Gator, I'm sorry to have to tell you that I've decided to officially vote oppose. I didn't want to vote oppose before because I felt like I hadn't had a chance to give you a fair shake for your recent contributions. I've had a bit of time just now to finally look through some of your recent contributions, especially the Laura Schlessinger page you referenced. While your contributions, particularly with vandalfighting, are excellent, they did not include the kind of conflict resolution I was hoping to see that would sway me toward considering the door entirely closed on the past. I hope you understand and look forward to watching you progress here in the future toward another RFA, should this one fail (which is not assured by any means!). Best · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Vote to keep, show these hypocrites what's what, tolerance? ha, only when it's good for them--Diatrobica;l 23:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Who did this??
Somebody cut-pasted United States to United States of America and then deleted the former article title with more than 7000 deleted edits. Who is this?? Georgia guy 23:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Your RFA
Hey, no problem. Best of luck, although as you say it will be a challenge to get the adminship. Let me know if someone deletes my vote again, and I'll definitely support your next nomination if this one fails. Best, Daniel11
- (Oops, accidentally hit "minor" on the last message... oh well, not that it makes a difference anyway!) --Daniel11 00:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I saw one too!
Stumbled upon this! [2]--MONGO 04:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Uno Mas
Hi Gator. Left another question for you on your RfA. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I will consider your answers and reconsider my vote. I was unhappy the veil of courtesy had to fall and I once again was attacked, however. Honest thanks for the answers, Gator. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Look at this
Look at this, I'm famous - I'm being stalked by a nutcase! Izehar (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sues me? For what, busting his bubble? John Doe #16 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
My RFA
 |
Thank you for voting for me at my RFA, which closed with a 24/1/1 outcome. I will do my best in the position I now am in. Thanks again, and see you around Wikipedia! |
--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you!
Used2BAnonymous/Dominick dispute
Concerning the prolonged dispute between Used2BAnonymous and Dominick, it would seem that their RfC has been irrevocably damaged. I've consulted with a few other mediators on IRC, and I think their case would be best dealt with by the Arbitration Committee. If they accept to do so, would you mind helping them with their request? I feel that I'm too inexperienced to deal with a dispute this fierce. // Pathoschild 07:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- If you know how to file a request for arbitration, I'd like you to help them through the process; for example, explaining what's expected of them, what explanation they need to give, et cetera. If you're no more comfortable with this than I am, do you know anyone more experienced who could do this? Either way, much appreciated. // Pathoschild 14:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. ^^ // Pathoschild 01:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your decision regarding the Square One Shopping Centre page. I will be reverting to my last version. Again, thank you. --Mb1000 18:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
My RfA
Cheers!
Ianbrown's RfA
Ianbrown's RfA
hey Gator, well I didn't anything bad!, i just wanna help to wikipedia, is it bad??
hi again, Gator, I didn't change "United States" to "United-Statesian" I changed "American" to "United-Statesian", why? because i think that is incorrect to call to US people like "American" because American are all people from American continent. and again: is it bad?
Next time
I was happy to support you and would certainly expect to be able to do so again soon. My suggestion is to keep doing what you have been doing (other than the BigDaddy777 dustup) and you should have no problem in another two months. Good luck. -- DS1953 talk 20:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
My RFA
Daschund training
Hello Gator1 - my apologies for the Daschund link. After placing the link I noticed that I hadn't updated teh Daschund page with the training tips. Please have a look at it when you have a chance and let me know if this is better.
Regards,
Michael THe dog trainer 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Heya! I moved the discussion about the links added to daschund / dog training site to the to the dog project talk page, i don't think that the site merits extensive inclusion especially on breed specific pages. Anyhow, feel free to comment there if you like. - Trysha (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Your Request for Adminship
Hello, Gator1.
I'm sorry, but your RfA did not reach a consensus before the request's deadline. You received 33 support votes to 18 oppose votes, which is about the same as a 64.7% support to oppose ratio. While this is not a "failing" RfA, it does not meet the need for a clear community consensus. Do not be discouraged! You may use this opportunity to address the concerns of those who opposed you. The major concerns that were raised include the following:
- Your interactions with other users are sometimes viewed as too confrontational. Relax! We're all in this project together. Stress is understandable, but don't let it interfere with your editing or interactions with others. Read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
- Lack of experience. Don't let that bother you too much. Many users want time and effort towards the project, and assuming that you stay with us and remain dedicated, you'll get there without any effort.
I personally suggest that you reapply for adminship when you feel that you have addressed these concerns. Adminship is no big deal, so don't let this unsuccessful RfA slow you down. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Good luck in the future, and happy editing! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, Gator. It's too bad this one didn't succeed, but give it a few months and I'm sure we'll see a different result. Just keep up the good work. android79 04:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my RfA
Hi Gator! Thanks for your support on my RfA. Linuxbeak has just given my sysop priviledges. :-) If you need anything, I have an open door policy so feel free to walk on in and ask. Happy Holidays! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Your RfA
I'll be blunt...to condemn you for a dozen questionable comments made out of more than 2 thousand edits is ridiculous. I saw plenty of accusatory lingo thrown at you and much of what happened during the BD nonsense was you defending yourself. The admin thing is no big deal, and there is zero liklihood in my opinion that you would have abused your extra powers. Heck, I can name a half dozen admins that have never been anything other than rude to me, so foget about et! If you want to try again in a few months, I'll be glad to nominate you, but I think you may be better off with someone else as many of those that opposed you, also opposed me, so I see little evidence to suggest that politics didn't have something to do with it.--MONGO 04:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
my RfA
Adminship EdwinHJ
In the light of the opposition to Edwin's 3rd attempt, you may wish to review your position (24 hours left).Phase1 21:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
My RfA
Thanks for supporting my RfA. The final tally was a smashing 22/4/1. Deltabeignet 23:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
My RFA
Hey Gator1! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your support of my Rfa, Gator1. I am happy to announce that I have successfully been voted an administrator, and wish to say that I will work harder to make Wikipedia a more reliable source of information. I apologize if this seems impersonal but it is past my bedtime. My thank you's are always after Eliezers. His is better then mine. Croat Canuck 06:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Removing other editor's warnings from pages
Please don't do it. I agree that a {{test1}} seems low to start with for a returning vandal (who is now blocked in any case), but you know that admins wouldn't just look at a page with a ton of warnings plus 1 recent test1 and say 'Oh, well maybe they are just confused how wikipedia works'. Cheers. --Syrthiss 14:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, sorry about that, thanks. I removed it because that has actually been my experienced. An admin won't block if there's a warning out there and no vandalism since. I didn't realize that was a no no. Thanks!Gator (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not a prob :). --Syrthiss 14:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
I would liek to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year - Guettarda 15:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Same to you.Gator (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Users ToadX, Ogstrokes and 24.239.149.9 are all in violation fot he 3 revert rule. None of the edits are vandalism and the parties need to discuss this matter on the talk page and not accuse each other of vandalism and report each other to the admins. As of now, all three of you could be blocked for what is happening here. I humbly suggest and urge you come here and talk this through. No more reverts.Gator (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I am writing contributing articles, that Toadx is continuing to have deleted. They are properly sourced with links to verify it. ToadX has been deleting it for I dont know what reason. please respond
Gator vs. Gator1
Hrm, that's a good question. I don't really know the answer :-). I don't think there's really any reason, policy-wise, that you couldn't register User:Gator and then redirect the user and talk pages to Gator1. However, some people may not be happy with that arrangement. It might be one of those unwritten rules or it might just be seen as a faux pas.
Have you had problems with people getting confused by your username lately? android79 17:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Gator...all you need to do is request a username change by following the instructions here: Wikipedia:Changing username--MONGO 08:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
ToadX - St. John's University
So if I put a sentance such as "Prospective residents of the United States should be made aware of this president's actions which have caused many people to die in Iraq." in a random place in George Bush's article (such as "2004 Campaign"), put it in bold and put a link under it, and did the same for hundreds of other articles, there is no problem with that? I would never be blocked, and we would need to discuss this material every time I posted something like that?
Block on User:ToadX
Since this user is not trying to hide behind an anonymous IP, I gave him the opportunity to voluntarily abide by the block imposed on him. I am willing to take him at his word on the matter, but if he doesn't cooperate, please alert me. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 20:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Block on Star Trek
Go back to the definition of vandalism. Threatening to block me because i stated that a major newspapers and a magazine (LA Times and Macleans) interview a professional in Child sexual abuse is called oppression. This article is newsworthy and relate to star trek. Freedom of the press please. 22 december 2005
W.marsh's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (30/2/0). I will do my best at the position I now am in. Thanks again! --W.marsh 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
On AMA Mediation: What to do next...
Hi Gator, I've been pondering over what to do about AMA; should we perform informal mediations or not? Do you think that before the actual vote, we should inform all members that the discussion is taking place and if most of them oppose the idea of mediation, then we should remove it from the proposal and then call a vote. It'll save time. Izehar (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!
Izehar's RfA
Hi Gator,
My RfA
Hi Gator! Thank you for your kind support on my RfA. -- Szvest 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Adminship
Hi, thanks for supporting my request for adminship. If there's ever something I can help you out with please drop me a note. Happy holidays! Jacoplane 16:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Howcheng's RfA
Thank you for your gracious support in my recent request for adminship despite my not totally supporting you during yours. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howcheng {chat} 07:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism claim 213.46.162.168 [3]
The IP 213.46.162.168 is shared in the Chello [4] network in Belgium [5] comments and vandalism claims might be irrelivant and not reach the right user.
My RfA
Thank you for supporting my successful RfA! Your trust means a great deal to me, and I promise to try my hardest to serve the community. —David Levy (formerly Lifeisunfair) 06:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Test time!
User:MONGO/Test for Dementia--MONGO 11:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
RfA thanks from Deathphoenix
Hi Gator,
I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.
My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.
I'll make sure your trust in me is founded. If you have any questions or need any advice for your own future RfA, just let me know. --Deathphoenix 14:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't get a source to prove it's a parody that refers to Dr. Laura, because parodies work by indirect reference. That is where we find their power. They say things that cannot be said directly, because it would be too politically dangerous or sensitive. Indeed, one raison d'etre of a parody is to hide the direct connects: i.e.: The author must make the link between a parody and the powerful person it refers to obscure. Can you propose another alternative that will work?
We have the whole transcript of Bartlet's speech on the Wiki servers here: [6]. Here are the similarities: Dr. Jacobs is a established enough of a figure on the national level to be invited to the white house. Dr. Laura is nationally syndicated and the number 1 in ratings for several years. Dr. Jacobs has a PH.d. in a field that is not the focus of her show. Dr. Laura has a Ph.D. in a field that is not the focus of her show. Dr. Jacobs uses the Dr. title on a call in radio show. Dr. Laura uses the Dr. title on a call in radio show. Dr. Jacobs dispenses advice regarding psychology, theology or health care. Dr. Laura dispenses advice on theology, mental health, and psychology. Dr. Jacobs calls homosexuality an abomination. Dr. Laura calls homosexuality a "biological error." Dr. Jacobs quotes the Bible chapter and verse. Dr. Laura refers to the Torah, and considers herself a Jewish rabbi. Dr. Jacobs bases her disapproval of homosexuality in the bible. Dr. Laura disapproves of homosexuality based on the psychological family health, and her physiological training. --Muchosucko 15:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: AMA
I really don't know - no one seems to care. Izehar 15:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Right - I'll archive the talk page, prepare the voting page and spam all members. Give me a few hours though. Izehar 15:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Lawyer category?
I see you're in a lot of categories - but not Category:Lawyer Wikipedians! Thought I'd point that out. BD2412 T 19:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Please block me if I have committed vandalism
This may seem an unusual request to you, but DannyWilde (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly accusing me of "vandalism". The specific act that he is referring to, which he terms "blanking vandalism", is when he merged the entire contents of Wikifiddler into Andrew Orlowski on the day before the AfD on the former closed with a consensus to delete, and I reverted that merge, believing that according to AfD policy, one is not allowed to pre-emptively merge the contents of an article when the community is already discussing whether the content should be kept, should be merged or should be deleted entirely.
Danny, as mentioned before, regarded this as "blanking vandalism", and has viewed himself as entitled to a variety of acts in order to circumvent, or more frequently retaliate for, my "vandalism". In the area of circumvention, he copied the entire contents of Andrew Orlowski in the form he preferred it, with the merged contents of the now-deleted Wikifiddler, to an article called Andrew Orlowski (journalist), separate from the article Andrew Orlowski about the same individual. (The new article was itself deleted by unanimous consensus at AfD.) In the area of retaliation, he has several times posted what he believes to be my real name on various pages of Wikipedia, including article talk pages and in the edit summaries of article talk pages. This activity earned him a 48-hour block, which just expired tonight. Once unblocked, one of the first things he did was to post my supposed real name again on his talk page. One of the next things he did was to post what he claimed was an e-mail he sent to you, accusing me once again of vandalism and asking why the rules are being ignored in my case.
I am thereby requesting that you look at any instances of vandalism that I am alleged to have committed and determine to your own satisfaction whether they are, in fact, "vandalism" by Wikipedia's definition. If they are indeed vandalism, then please apply to me the penalty that would apply to any other vandal, whether that be blocks or bans or whatever is appropriate. If they are not vandalism, I hope that you will do your best to communicate to Danny that the reason I have not been blocked for breaking the rules is that I did not break any, and that he is not allowed to pursue his vigilante justice in the manner he has been. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your RFA support
| Hi Gator1/Archives/December 2005! I have been on a refreshing wikibreak for the last week, so this is a belated thank-you for supporting my adminship nomination. Happy new year (if that's your kind of thing)! jnothman talk 18:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC) |