User talk:Dank/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Why did i not get a chance to object to this?

Marknutley/The Gore Effect I object to this wip being deleted, it was not an attack page in any way shape or form. It is an article on the well known phrase "The Gore Effect" All the entries were reliably sourced and i can`t actually believe you took time to read either the article nor the links. I wish to appeal this deletion and request you let me know how to. I would also like to point out two admins had already seen this page and had no issues with it and were offering constructive advice on building it up [[1]] --mark nutley (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Deletion review is where deletions are appealed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, if it is deleted then how can it be appealed? How can anyone see what was there?

Below you say the refs were not working, sorry about that but i am fairly new and as it was a wip they would have been fixed. Can you let me know how i can link to the deleted article for appeal please? --mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it will probably cause less drama if I undelete this page and take it to WP:Miscellany for deletion. Although we don't generally like to undelete pages like this one, there's no great harm done in disparaging Al Gore, and a full discussion will make it easier to handle similar pages that might pop up in the future (per WP:CSD#G10 and WP:CSD#G4). - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man thats good of you, how long do i have to defend this btw? my kids are running riot and time is at a premium :) mark nutley (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion usually lasts for a week, so take your time. However, it occasionally happens that voters will agree that a speedy deletion is appropriate, in which case it could happen faster. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, do i put my defence in here? [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 16:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User space page deletion

Can you please explain the deletion of User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. The page was NOT an attack page. Merely noting a correlation between the appearance of Al Gore and acts of nature is NOT an attack. Please reconsider. Alternatively how can this action be appealed? --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Deletion review is where deletions are appealed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, the first item in the instructions indicates that we should attempt to resolve the issue with you first. So here I am back to do so. Can you please justify your action. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure; my justification is that I've been very active in deletion work in attack pages for almost a year now and, based on what I've seen, I think the decision will probably lean in favor of speedy deletion at WP:DRV, but it wouldn't offend me a bit if you want to take it to DRV. You're entitled and welcome to your day in court, and it's even possible the decision will go the other way there. The things I looked at were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore Effect (resulting in delete), and the part of WP:CSD#G10 that says that the title can also be taken into account. Unlike some of the other speedy deletion criteria, G10 does require that I make judgments that can't always be justified by the actual words on the page ... for example, if a new page by a new editor says only "Joe X ... he's so cool!" they might have really meant to promote his coolness in Wikipedia. But, teenagers being what they are, the odds are that this was meant to embarrass Joe X, and even if that wasn't the intent, Joe X is likely to perceive it as an attempt to embarrass him, so it gets speedy deleted per G10, since the effect of the page is to disparage someone, and there's nothing on the page that could become encyclopedic. Although Al Gore is a (very) public figure, so he doesn't get the same protection as Joe X, G10 still seems to apply here; I saw nothing in the "references" (no references were linked, just claimed, and the external links didn't help) to suggest that there's any actual phenomenon (or could be, unless you believe in psychic phenomena) that makes it colder wherever Al Gore travels, nor has the phrase gotten any currency (nor could it) outside the class of journalists whose journalistic skills don't rise far above calling politicians poopy-heads. If you repeat someone's attack, that's an attack, and is speediable under G10. Btw, the spirit of WP:CSD#G4 also applies, but I thought that might spin off into unproductive, technical arguments. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. See the section above above; I'm now taking this to WP:Miscellany for deletion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. A more deliberative venue should help to reach a decision that can be accepted all around. Good idea! --GoRight (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Just fyi {{noindex}} is redundant when {{userspace draft}} exists. –xeno^talk 16:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Unless something has changed since the summer, everything in usertalk-space is noindex'd by default ... I added the noindex just in case the contents of that page moved to userspace, but I understand you're saying I didn't need to because of {{userspace draft}}. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Triply no-indexed then =) –xeno^talk 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have changed questionable faith to misguided, so I guess you get a grudging apology. But unless there is a good basis for believing this to be an attack page I think he should be allowed to do whatever he wants in his user space: whether exploring formating, holding notes on a topic etc. --BozMo talk 17:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This concerned WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Marknutley/The_Gore_Effect. The general point you're making is quite reasonable. I hope the end result gets translated into some kind of text at WP:ATTACK. - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW your admin review looks asleep so I will make a comment here. Personally I would rather have admins like you who are very active and very occasionally wrong than those paralysed by analysis. So keep going and don't get put off by grumpy old men like me (even though on the two occasions I have come across you on Weasel and this MfD I have basically disagreed with you. --BozMo talk 17:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate that. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why Page Deletion?

I recently uploaded an article and after having another administrator retag it - I see you deleted it. Why is this? Is this in error? I am new to wiki, but I did mimic the style of other pages online for other same-industry professionals. (ie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jillian_Michaels_(personal_trainer)) I am eager to learn wiki "best practices" - could you please explain why this page was deleted and what should be done to rectify? I have extensive notations for the article and am happy to explain anything that raises a question or causes concern. Best! Here is the link to my original page (before the retag): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Peterson_(Personal_Trainer,_Fitness_Expert) Freddie.Bauer (talk)

One version of the page still exists at User:Freddie.Bauer/Gunnar Peterson; please ask the folks at WP:Drawing board for advice. The page sounds promotional. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Article Reinstatement (defense of article concerns detailed below)

Administrator Dank,

I have exchanged emails with the user who flagged my article for "speedily deletion" and responded to his comments regarding the content. He indicated you were the one who actually deleted the article - his was a flag based on concerns noted below. I don't know if this is the best way to loop you to the discussion - but I am pasting the contents from my talk page below. If I receive additional comments from him/her, I will move them here for you to see unless you recommend otherwise.

I am respectfully requesting reinstatement of my article based on the defense of points below. I do see you mentioned WP:Drawing Board above, but I take that to be more instructional than a place to defend your article. (is that correct?) I am assuming (right? wrong?) that since you are the administrator with the delete priviledges who pulled the trigger on deleting my article, you are the one I should speak to about reinstatement.

If you are not to whom I should address my article defense, apologies - and please point me in the right direction!

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration! Freddie.Bauer (talk)

Tag

I tagged your article because it appeared to me to be advertising or promotion of a business. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory, and advertising - or what looks like advertising - is not allowed. I nearly tagged for notability as well, as I could not see the notability of a fitness trainer to the well-off. Better paid than being a personal trainer in Barrow-in-Furness, say, but not a lot more notable. Fame and wealth do not confer notability on those who work for the possessors of them. Only in exceptional circumstances, maybe, but I couldn't see that here. What happened with the deletion was that at 18.01 (GMT - my time) the article was deleted "18:01, 10 January 2010 Dank (Talk | contribs) deleted "Gunnar Peterson" ‎ (G11: Please see WP:WHYNOT. (CSDH))" The other two deletes are removing redirects, I think. If you decide to re-create the article, you will need to avoid sounding like a brochure, and provide references that indicate the notability (by Wikipedia's definitions) of the subject. This will probably be press coverage, or similar, but not blogs, forums, or anything editable (like Wikipedia, for instance). If in fact you are looking to advertise the subject, may I suggest aboutus or LinkedIn, which are for that purpose. Peridon (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't delete the article. I'm not an admin, and can't. User:Dank was the one who did. One person having an article is not a reason for another to. The other one might just have escaped notice. With so many articles (13 million) some will slip through. Peridon (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Reasons Noted Above for Your Tag requesting "Speedily Deletion"

Thank you for your clarification as to who executed the delete - I had emailed Dank as well - since you were both noted. I will forward my comments to him for his review.

I respectfully dispute your position that the article should be removed and ask you to reconsider. In defense, I will address your points individually below:

1. Subject has a lack of notability:

I respectfully dispute your position that this person has no "notability". Arguably credible media outlets such as CNN, REUTERS, MSNBC and Sports Illustrated assert his position at the top of the industry. Many of these outlets refer to him as "the face" of the fitness industry. Per your request that I use references to indicate this notability - I did. Roughly 30 of them. (references - not including external links) In addition to the training/expert aspect, he is also a published author and creator of an 18 dvd fitness series and trademarked athletic equipment. This is not "just" a personal trainer as you suggested comparing to one in Barrow-in-Furness. This is a highly educated, accomplished professional with 20 years experience - and recognized by leading news media as the top of their field.

2. You suggest that the article seeks to establish notability regarding fame or wealth:

This article is CERTAINLY not about fame or wealth. It outlines 20 years of work of an industry professional - who happens to be quite well known and highly regarded in his field.

RE: your mention of "better paid"
With regards to your note that he is perhaps "Better paid than being a personal trainer in Barrow-in-Furness, say, but not a lot more notable" - I am confused. I made no mention of his compensation. I believe this statement indicates assumptions are being made about a topic I did not address. Even if you read the articles that I referenced (though important to note I have NOT included fee related content in my wiki article) he is mum on his fees. When pressed, he simply says his training is less expensive than the medical bills you can incur later from not taking care of your body. I see no boasting of wealth, etc. I did not see how fees were relevant to his accomplishments and did not address them. I am factually summarizing the references available... and this comment feels harsh/judgmental to me - grounded somewhere other than the facts I present in my wiki article.

RE: your mention of his professional clientele
Regarding the references to his professional clientele - I believe they are relevant to the topic as they (the individual celebs and athletes) are considered relevant and featured extensively in wikipedia. (ie: Sylvester Stallone. A source I quote notes that Sylvester Stallone was so grateful for his help that he cast him in his movie as his trainer) Noting the fact that these people (often of great means and unlimited options) choose to work with him - often exclusively - speaks to his credibility, relevance and notability in the industry.

RE: not exclusively professional clientele
Please note that I also addressed that this (celeb & pro athlete) was not exclusively his clientele in my opening statement: "Gunnar Peterson is a Swedish American personal trainer and fitness expert well known for his work with professional athletes, celebrities and everyday people." Given the sources I cited, the statement that my article implies notability based on fame or wealth strikes me as judgmental. If you feel it would make for a more well-rounded article, I would be happy to include quotes about his work with individuals (often elderly and sick) - as well as just "everyday people". They would further underline the benefits of fitness at any age - as well as the benefits of functional training modalities.

RE: the practice of indicating an association with a well known person
As I mentioned, I am new to wiki but am sincerely trying to apply wiki best practices. I based much of my structure on articles already published on wiki. (wiki suggests reviewing other articles for structure and content) The practice of indicating one does have a celebrity or professional athlete clientele is apparently commonplace. I.e.:

Within the Fitness Industry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jillian_Michaels_(personal_trainer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Greene_(fitness_guru)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harley_pasternak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Lyons_(personal_trainer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Harper_(personal_trainer)

Other examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Zoe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Johnson

The Harley Pasternak page goes so far as to include a formatted list of his past and present celebrity clients - with links to their pages. And in his defense, I believe this is relevant. The Bob Greene page notes working with Oprah - and the article even notes him as a "Fitness Guru" in the title. The Kim Lyons page notes she will be working with Dr. Phil, The Bob Harper page notes working with celebrity clients like Jennifer Jason Leigh. I'm happy to cite more - but believe my point is made and respect your time.

I do not feel that this is a case of as you said: "With so many articles (13 million) some will slip through." I am not trying to be difficult - I simply want it understood that I put much time and effort into my first article and am eager to defend how every word in that article came to be.

An additional note - My initial title parenthesis tag of "(fitness expert and personal trainer)" - definable terms - was removed. But nearly all others are noted as personal trainers in the title - one as a fitness guru. Since there are other Gunnar Petersons - I thought this would assist in identifying which Gunnar the wiki user is searching for. Any advice? Perhaps I formatted this wrong?

3. You suggest lack of references from credible sources: I had included roughly 30 references - all credible news media sources such as CNN, REUTERS, MSNBC, The New York Times, Mayo Clinic, Duke and Harvard Universities. I also included media sources that were more industry specific - like Sports Illustrated. Of my reference section, I made certain that I did not include anything in the way of a blog as indicated in the wiki guidelines. I also included approximately 30 external links as well.

4. That the article is like a brochure: I disagree with this statement. Brochures are for the purpose of sales - there are no items being sold here. Of all the retail items mentioned (ie: Gunnar's Core Secrets DVD Series, G-Force, the Workout, athletic equipment, etc.) the ONLY ITEM still available to purchase (unless you're trolling ebay or craigslist perhaps) is his book The Workout. I believe mentioning these items is perfectly acceptable - they are his accomplishments - and no different than naming the albums or songs from a musician. Please note there are no links to purchase anything as would be the goal of advertising. I included the ISBN numbers for the books - but I believe that's best practice to include bibliography information, yes?

I do show a link to FREE videos (fitness exercises for pets and their owners) - but believe these are relevant links since they and their benefits are covered by news media outlets like REUTERS - and done in partnership with the American Veterinary Medical Association and APOP. (cited, of course) The videos are free online - with no personal information, purchase, etc. required for access. You don't even register on their site. Click the link - press play. Here is credible and free fitness information that you can incorporate into your lifestyle. The petfit website is about pet health. I do not believe the fact that a corporate sponsor also involved in the alliance pays for the hosting bandwidth/traffic and sells pet food makes the videos and resources available there any less credible. It's a completely separate website.

I do agree that like a brochure, much of the information is positive - but the reason for this is because this is what the sources state. I have yet to find a single article or news agency that does NOT praise his work with functional training modalities, improvement of athletic performance, knowledge of physical fitness, etc. And I have compiled sources underlining this point including hundreds of articles and video coverage over at least a 10 year span.

Thank you for your Time and Consideration
Please understand my intent is not to be difficult or take time from your day - I am merely trying to be thorough in addressing the concerns you noted. I am new here - learning - and sincerely appreciate all guidance I receive (constructive or praise). I also appreciate your time in reviewing my points in defense and respect that you rescind your flag that the article should be "speedily deleted". As I mentioned above, I will forward a copy of my comments to Administrator Dank. I would appreciate your support in reinstating my article.

I believe I have addressed each concern you noted, but please let me know if you do not believe I have done so thoroughly. As mentioned - I spent a great deal of time writing and sourcing my first wiki article and am eager to explain/defend where every word came from.

Best! Freddie.Bauer (talk)

WP:Deletion review is where deletions are appealed. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The poll was a good idea. - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye

As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friend and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM WuhWuzDat 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read the WQA and RFCC. I'll make you a deal: I'll restore your Twinkle privileges and field all the flak directed your way concerning speedy deletions, provided we can get another admin to make the same deal regarding EL and vandalism reversion (which I'm not good at ... or, alternatively, you could stick to speedy tagging for a while), and provided you're still interested in tagging work, and provided you'll talk with me about things that come up. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Campaign

The events of the previous RfA were somewhat unusual. The user who was doing the alleged campaigning is banned now. Everyking (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll look into the ArbCom case. I don't want to reply yet because I wrote a paragraph, and I don't like to say too much before everyone else has had a chance. - Dank (push to talk) 00:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Sehparks/The Boutique Search Firm

Good point; it does seem like we've given enough time. I'll delete. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Stephen J Davis

Hi, I have just had the article i made today deleted within 30 minutes. The gentleman i wrote about is notable in his contribution to charities that were listed on that particular wiki. Having seen that I included his company website which violates wiki's conditions, I promptly removed it. But unfortunately my entry was still deleted. Can I have the article reinstated? regards.

Can I have the article reinstated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen J Davis (talk • contribs) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following "the gentleman i wrote about" ... your username is User:Stephen J Davis, and you wrote about Stephen J Davis ... is that not you? - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Clever hoax article

Hi there. Do you have time to pls look into this article? The article creator selected a user name of british artist Michael Craig-Martin, and made some claims on the artists' article, citing a book by Richard Cork as a source. A google-book search of the same book reveals that the claimed material is not in the book. The article of Sandie Waters looks like a real BLP, but in effect is a hoax. Search engines do not know any painter/artist by the name of Sandie Waters, and thus I have CSD#G3 tagged the article . Amsaim (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. I'm handling mostly WP:G11, WP:G10 and WP:A7 these days; I'd recommend reporting this at the BLP noticeboard, WP:BLPN; they may have seen this material before. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. Will take it to the BLP board. Amsaim (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at MuffledThud's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Requests

do you have any requests?

Thanks for the note. Hmm. Well, if I had any requests, it might be that spam on user-talk pages be deleted -- assuming no other content -- and not hidden away by blanking, as some admins will do, just to be sure that Google either gets no trace of it or that it falls off their cache sooner. Nothing earth-shattering, just a preference. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing I have deleted user talk pages with spam around 95% of the time. Sometimes people left warnings on the talk page that I didn't want to get rid of. I agree with your principle here, so if I make the wrong call on any page, let me know. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
Message added 17:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you very much for the barnstar! A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks!

That barnstar...is...strangely...hyp...no...tic... – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I stole it from User:Jennavecia (with permission ... after the fact!) - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Envisage

I'm fine with it. The article would likely end up being nothing more than a dictionary definition. Joe Chill (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

kthx. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thanks for working on WP:UAA! Great job!-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 05:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept it for all the username blocks I've been doing this month, if that's okay :) - Dank (push to talk) 04:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Still, Thank you!  Done-- iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 05:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dank. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WPRB

Thanks for the note; The challenge is for anyone, admin and non-admins alike. So basically 10 different examples or you can try for all 21 different examples for two awards. Good luck Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much, I'll make a mental note to jot down examples of reverted vandalism as I go. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

You have speedily deleted the Preeden article. Please close the AfD discussion to it, as it is meaningless now. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the AfD, I'm waiting on one more vote. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As your talk page stalker, I noticed it and I agree that it was a reasonable G11, although I would have used A7 if I had come across it while patrolling CAT:SD. Regards SoWhy 14:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What leaned me towards G11 was the number of pages created by the same contributor with the same material (and also the fact that most or all of those pages had been tagged G11 ... I prefer to go with the tagger's decision if I can justify it), but I agree in principle, I often prefer A7, it runs a smaller risk of being bitey. Thanks for stalking! - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Old school Vandalism hunting

Well done with the challenge,

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For taking on the Old School Vandalism hunting 3 challenge presented at both WP:Reward Board and O4E Challenges and succesfully completing it by finding over 10 different various forms of vandalism and reverting them, I award you this defender of the wiki Barnstar for your tireless efforts to reduce vandalism in all its forms. Well Done. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a well-constructed competition. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey, thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you. You've been very dedicated, and I love the way you respond to questions and complaints on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

[3] Much appreciated :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Some of the gun weights are given in long tons, some are in pounds ... I thought we only used long tons for the displacement, is that right? - Dank (push to talk) 05:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally, but I wanted to give the long tons too, for comparison purposes with the displacement (ie how much they added on to the displacement). I fixed this is part though. :) Thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Email from User:100%records

Hi there Dank,

This is 100% records. I have just tried to create a new article for 100% records but it was immediately deleted (by you) and being as wikipedia seems to be the most difficult website on earth to use, i was wondering if you could advise me on what I am doing wrong.

I appreciate your policy that articles should not be promoting companies or businesses etc but there are numerous other VERY small record labels(even smaller than 100% records) listed on wikipedia which seem to have done far less in terms of big music (in line with your policy that articles should be relevant in some cultural way i.e contributed a lot to the music industry).

Basically, what should we include/remove from our page to make it acceptable. I really am only looking for advice, i can understand why you would have blocked the page. On the basis that I only just signed up to wikipedia a few hours ago, I feel it is way out of proportion to place an indefinite block on us. The purpose of our article is to allow people who may be interested in the label to find out a little more about us in line with other artists we have and are working with. Non of the links lead to websites that are selling anything.

Your comments on this would be greatly appreciated.

100% Records.

My apologies, the script that adds an explanation to your talk page almost always works, but it didn't work this time ... I've just added the explanation manually. The block isn't for being promotional, the block is because edits need to be attributed to a person (even an anonymous person), not a company like 100% Records. Please take a few moments to create a new account that represents just you. On the other question, I see that 100% Records has been deleted several times by several different admins, every time leaving detailed explanations. The best advice I have is at this link: WP:WHYNOT. You might also ask for help at Requests for feedback. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User account block

Hi Dank, I noticed you blocked User:Anupaph for a username policy violation. I'm curious though; you stated the name represents a real-life person or group, but I don't see evidence of that. Can you elaborate (perhaps I'm late on this one). Thanks.—DMCer™ 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Before blocking, I determined the language was tagalog and created a page at User:Dank/Sandbox4 (now deleted) with the {{notenglish|Tagalog}} tag at the top, and got the Google translation. Anupa was claimed to be an acronym used by that organization (that's key; I don't username-block for acronyms unless the organization itself uses the acronym), the Alliance for National Urban Poor Organizations Assembly. The "ph" of course refers to the Phillipines. There was nothing in the text to suggest that any one individual was connected to the account. As softerblock makes clear, the issue here isn't promotionalism, the issue is that we don't allow accounts that don't give us a clue who in the business or organization is making the edits. I would be open to going into more detail in the softerblock userpage notice as to the problems that arise when we can't attribute edits to a person (even an anonymous person), if that would help to soften the message, but the message seems to be working so far; I never get complaints about the block (except when the script fails to place the softerblock message, which is very rare.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't even notice the acronym! Good block. Thanks for taking the time to put that in context and elaborate. If you have anything you've been meaning to get around to, but haven't, feel free to drop a task my way.—DMCer™ 00:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I enjoy collaborating on articles, especially anything that might fit at WP:MILHIST, WP:SHIPS or WP:ROBO. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Conundrum

I've got a quick question regarding the proper course of action to take. I found a redirect that I believe points to a wrong target; the redir and target are two different people. Would this be speedy-able or taken to RFD or... The redir in question is [4] and I put my findings on its talk page. TheTito ^Discuss 09:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I work mainly with G10 and G11. Best to try Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion or WT:CSD. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the time. TheTito ^Discuss 20:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou very much!

Thanks for the barnstar, I don't think it'll get annoying! --BelovedFreak 15:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. You've done a lot of patrolling and UAA reports, and I was impressed with how you handled complaints on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Measures and dates

Hello Dan. I have raised the issue of unit conversions here.

On dates, WP:MOSNUM#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic says: "articles on the modern U.S. military use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field."

Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we're not going to be able to make everyone happy. Poking around, the WWII battleship articles seem to use day before month consistently. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "Policy update page"

Not sure if you track proposals... or just actual changes to policy... but if the former, there is a proposal at WT:Naming conventions to move/rename that policy to WP:Article Titles ... thought that you might want to include it in your update. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never tracked proposals, discussion or commentary, and since August I haven't tracked links or pointers to links, but I'll go mention this on the talk page (WT:Update/1). - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Redseaenterprises

I found that in the terms on the website that this user was promoting that they are a subsidiary of Red Sea Enterprises, so I went ahead and indef blocked. Wanted to let you know so that you didn't think I was side-stepping your call! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Washington

Hey Dank, I've begun rewriting the article on North Carolina's sister ship USS Washington (BB-56).[5] Just figured you might want to be aware :) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, that was going to be my next target after BB-55, I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha thanks for this [6] (fail) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I had to look it up first to make sure that wasn't some naval jargon :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, it's a very technical term for "Ed can't click the right word in Mozilla's spell checker". ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

PLC Party

Just for your information you have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#PLC_Party.2C_UK_Registered_political_party_of_British_at_home_and_abroad. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Searching on "party" and "PLC" gives me nothing in my last 500 admin actions, although that only gets me back to Feb 1 ... if you can get a username out of them, I'll be happy to look into it, I'm not sure what the problem was. They haven't emailed me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick question re. sockpuppets.

I recently submitted a sockpuppet investigation request on User:Jimcrik7. He's been tagged with {{sockmaster}} and his suspected socks with {{sock|Jimcrik7}}. This puts them in a category which is currently redlinked. Should I go ahead and create the category? I'm not very familiar with new category policy so I figured I'd ask an admin first. Thanks, XXX antiuser ^eh? 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know myself; could you ask at WT:SPI? - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive7#Sockpuppet categories. XXX antiuser ^eh? 02:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 12:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything about this post is great except one thing: "low allergen"? My nose is itching just looking at the picture (while my awwwwwww reflex is also working overtime). By the way, that is a terrible burden; I want a cat SO BADDDDLLLLLY and I just can't. I can't really even visit a person who has a cat for more than 1/2 hour, though I probably shorten the time by spending all my time playing with the little allergy ball.--98.116.35.89 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Gayguy69

I am unsure of how that's been seen as a blatant violation of username policy. Could you elaborate please on which part of the policy it offends? I know it couldn't be Gayguy, and I can't see how it's '69', as I can compile a large list of potentially dubious current usernames with 69 in them. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 16:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What tipped me over was the fact that only about 15% of our editors are female, and we're trying to find ways to remedy that. Women tend to be quite a bit more offended than men by usernames that come across as pushing sex acts "in your face". User:Gayguy would not have bothered me in the slightest, and User:Hi69 wouldn't be sufficiently "in your face" enough (and both usernames would almost always spew out vandalism edits ... but I think it's possible for good-faith contributors to choose names like that). "Gayguy69" is such a blatant reference to oral sex that I just can't help but feel that it will automatically be offensive to most female editors ... but I could be wrong, maybe we should ask for feedback. Thanks for asking, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Going back up and inserting so that my concern is clear: I'm not thinking that women will see the name and "not be able to handle it". I'm thinking that a discussion in which every other line ends in "Gayguy69" has the effect of interjecting a sexual reference continually into whatever the conversation is, and judging from the way the women I've known react to workplaces where constant sexual references are thrown around, I'm concerned that this might create an environment some women see as hostile. From the responses so far, I may be completely wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but I mean that's really just assuming what a group may or may not think about it. Yes they could have selected a better name, but this isn't a censored kids project, and generally it's not a clear cut violation of written policy (to me). I would have personally initiated discussion, and should they have ignored it and went on editing, then taken it to request for comment for community discussion (which may include some women) for their views. NJA (t/c) 17:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I considered RFCN ... the problem is that a small number of women voting alongside a large number of men sometimes feel intimidated. I'll link here from a few places and see if we can get more discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems that linking this to more places would just be like going through the ropes (ie discussion with the user) and then ultimately putting it up to RFCN. Either way the end result is it's being put to the community. Also, we can't be responsible for whether or not women choose to partake in discussion at that forum, and I'm actually offended that it's being said that women are extra sensitive and need shielding from a name that wasn't even particularly offensive, at least not to the point it where policy dictated it required a immediate block. NJA (t/c) 17:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it depends on your life experience, I suppose. It seems to happen a lot that men don't get how women think and women don't get how men think; thus the poll. I think it's entirely plausible that women won't have a problem with this name, but I'd really like to get their input ... even if this name is fine, we might find out that similar names are not fine with them, and that might be useful information. Btw, I'm posting at WT:CHU, WP:VPP, WT:RFCN and WT:U. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'm about done editing for the day, so I'll leave it at this -- essentially, you're correct in that we're not mind readers, and thus it shouldn't be a justification for blocking someone, particularly without first asking their feedback on it. That is why the first step in the written policy guidance is to discuss. Nothing in the name screams out to me that this is a blatantly forbidden name under that policy. Thus, I'm less worried about seeking discussion on if policy needs changed, as I think it's fine as is, and rather I'm more concerned on why it seemed okay to block on the assumption that women (who according to you make up less than 15% of editors) will be offended. I reckon, some men, just as some women, might be offended by the thought of two men 69'ing, but again those same people might think 69 generally is dirty and doesn't belong in usernames, and if I were to compile a list of slightly suggestive names with 69 in it then we'd be busy blocking for many hours. NJA (t/c) 17:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your view that I'm headed down the wrong path, and that I risk branding women as more squeamish or less tough than men, is completely valid, and will be shared by a lot of women as well as men. Talking about potential gender differences is fraught with peril, and I may be very sorry that I brought it up before we're done :) - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Username issues aside, I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that women are more likely to find these kinds of issues more offensive than men? It has been my experience that females are no more inclined to be offput than males by these kinds of things, at least when outside of the public eye; my wife is considerably more crass than myself, and my sisters are considerably more crass than their husbands. I may be off base in assuming you are a male (name notwithstanding) but it seems like something of an idealogical leap to presume we as males really know what females are or are not offended by. I guess I'm just curious if you have read some kind of study or survey to the effect that women are more "squeamish" than men with regards to sexually charged issues, or if it is an assumption based upon personal observation. Shereth 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with a softblock of the name. However, it's mild enough that a simple discussion with the user would likely result in a name change and it is not hardblock-worthy. Why it should matter if only male or female Wikipedians are offended is not so clear. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Issue one: That was an administrative action, so where's the argument from policy? To wit: "Ultimately, the line between acceptable and unacceptable usernames is based on the opinions of other editors." You seem to have sidestepped the procedure outlined in WP:BADNAME.

Issue two: "only about 15% of our editors are female", "offensive to most female editors", "small number of women voting alongside a large number of men sometimes feel intimidated": Without citations to reliable sources, these are just your personal prejudices. Which would be fine for any old edit, but not as rationale for using admin tools.

Issue three: Since when is "Gayguy" offensive? IMVHO, this could only be the case if you consider homosexuality offensive.

Issue four: "blatant reference to oral sex": How do you know it's not the birthyear? Or maybe Gayguy69 is the owner of a '69 Mustang? I'll admit that many will interpret it as a reference to oral sex. Even then, many people enjoy oral sex. Paradoctor (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Again ... the argument "where's the argument from policy" is completely valid, and I take potential misuse of admins tools very seriously ... I'm all ears. The one edit by this particular editor was vandalism, and my block message was a very mild one, inviting them to create a new username, so I don't think in this particular case that I've ruined their Wikipedia experience, but I have absolutely no objection to any admin unblocking and/or talking with this user, or with asking me to unblock the user. I'll do that spontaneously if the negative reaction to this block is clear. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I checked the edit, and have come to the conclusion that you did the right thing for the wrong reason. I was under the mistaken impression that your block was preemptive, but the user's edit has made it clear that the name was chosen to offend. I'd say you've avoided the WP:STOCKS this time. ;)

WRT your reasoning, I understand from what you said below that it is pretty natural for you to be concerned about other's sensitivities. OTOH, by WP:GREATWRONGS, there's something to be said for the judicious application of callous indifference. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

On a more directly related front (and perhaps repeating some of the comments above that came in while I was typing this), I am somewhat concerned about the way "offensive" is being applied to usernames for the purposes of blocking. It has been my understanding that "offensive" within the scope of the username policy is synonymous with "offensive toward people/a group of people". User:Assfaggot would be blockable as clearly offensive toward homosexuals. User:Kikehater would be blockable as clearly offensive toward Jews. More concerning to me is the blocking of names like User:Gayguy69 as it is clearly not offensive toward anyone, rather, that some group (putatively females) finds it offensive as in "objectionable". It could be argued that some highly conservative users would find User:Gayguy "offensive" because it deals with homosexuality, a topic they find objectionable. Understandably we want to create a harmonious editing atmosphere and will therefore block patently vulgar names with phrases like "fuck" or "shit" because these are more or less universally offensive, but in my opinion, blocking usernames because a certain group of people may find it such a name to be "objectionable" is a move in the wrong direction. Shereth 18:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not judging me quickly, both of you, I really appreciate it. I'm a gay male; User:Johnboddie and I just celebrated our 27th anniversary in December. John (and I, to a lesser extent) have been up to our necks in these kinds of discussions for most of our lives; he wrote the definitive legal guide for gay and lesbian North Carolinians and has served on numerous boards, including (currently) the national ACLU board. It's been our experience that women are no more likely to be uncomfortable with sexual topics than men when they're with friends and family, but in impersonal or professional settings, they see constant references to sex as off-putting; sometimes it comes across as a "boy's club" or "good 'ol boy" environment. OTOH, I'm 52 ... I like to think that I'm comfortable with Web 2.0 and that I keep up, but younger people will have much better insights than I do about what's acceptable and what's not these days. The main insight I want to offer ... and I'll be astounded if this isn't true any more, it sure used to be true ... is that females give different answers depending on whether they see themselves in a small minority or not, so I'm concerned that the usual way to answer these questions (discussion at WT:U, WT:UAA and especially WP:RFCN) may have a systematic bias that is hiding valuable information from us. With our current female participation at 15%, we should at least not do anything that risks lowering that figure. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth I did not mean to insinuate that you had passed any judgement personally (and certainly did not mean to insinuate that you were excersizing any kind of anti-gay sentiment). My point was more general, "offensive toward" vs. "finds offensive". Many apologies if it came across any other way. Shereth 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for, and you can probably tell from the ACLU link that John and I are right with you on the general subject of "offensive toward" vs. "finds offensive". That's what makes this discussion so hard. I want to give the discussion a little time to see if my intuition is right and women want to chime in here in support, but I'm more than prepared to surrender if this doesn't get anywhere. I think you frame the issue quite well. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted by a few editors above, and I believe myself, we cannot allow ourselves to use what we think someone else may perceive as offensive as a rational in blocking, particularly for a name that under the current written policy could hardly be classified as a blatant violation. The policy is clear on how to handle minor and/or questionable violations, ie discuss with them first. Unless both the username and blocking policies were changed from their current meaning, I personally cannot see how we could allow this as a justification. Further, if we're citing numbers, I worry that blocks without discussion for questionable concerns does not help with our member retention figures generally (male or female). NJA (t/c) 18:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm female and sat the link over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)‎ for this discussion asking fo rfemale opinions. I'll admit, I'm very curious as to how or why this name would be considered the least bit offensive, particularly to females (really, as a woman, I find that claim mildly insulting as it could be taken as an implication that we're somehow more intolerant or something?) For what its worth, I don't see anything wrong in the username myself, though considering the general state of the world with regards to homosexuality, I'd suggest the user may reconsider using the name due to the sort of abuse he may be opening himself up for with regards to our less savory users who randomly vandalize user pages and user talk pages (if he's thick skinned/doesn't care, then I'd say let him use it). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that insight, and I'd like to stress that this is why I think the policy guidance of 'discuss first' for names that are not serious violations of policy needs to be pushed more at UAA so as to encourage its use by everyone. Had that been done, the user would have been able to learn the concerns (as noted by Collectonian) and then be able to decide what to do, rather than forced. NJA (t/c) 18:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dank pointed me here so I'll give my opinion. I agree with Collectonian that the username isn't inherently offensive (and I'm agnostic as to whether women would be more likely to find it offputting), but it seems from the content of the user's only edit that it was probably intended to evoke crude stereotypes and refer to the sex act. Even if the person who created the account did go on to contribute in good faith, I think they would be better served being forced to create a new account.--ragesoss (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate username, even if not "offensive" to some. It is clear what the intended message is, and promoting a sex act in a username is uncalled for. RFerreira (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely not clear at all as they weren't asked. Wikipedia isn't about being a highly sensitive individual who wishes to censor others for something that may or may not mean what you think it means. The 69 could have been a special year for them. We always assume good faith where it's unclear, and the policy doesn't say this type of name is a blatant violation. There are many names that come through with an odd use of 'dicks', etc and most all admins correctly assume good faith as it could be a surname. Granted, in this case the user's one edit wasn't fantastic, but it didn't make their name choice any more contentious, ie they didn't post anything that made it clear the name was meant to be offensive or disruptive in the sense people are thinking. Again, we would have hundreds, if not thousands of accounts to block if the use of 69 with use of a mildly suggestive prefix or suffix were compiled. I am going to unblock the name and point them to this discussion. Should they be a vandalism only account, then they will be re-blocked appropriately for being vandalism only, but certainly not for username. NJA (t/c) 07:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"odd use of 'dicks'": Dicklyon not only has done a lot of work here, this is also his real name. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"promoting a sex act is uncalled for": Why? I'm not aware of any kind of consensus supporting this view, and discussion so far seems to contradict this point of view. Imagine how a religious person might feel about AgnosticPreachersKid, a fructarian about MeatMan666, a pacifist about Baby Nuke, or a Texan conservative about Anarchovegan. Paradoctor (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dank, you asked for opinions (on the pump), so here's another - I don't think that it was appropriate to block the user for that name. I think you're analysing it far too much. At the most, a discussion with the user might be appropriate, if someone were to object - although I can't see why they would. I think that deciding in such cases sets a dangerous precedent - along the lines of NOTCENSORED, if we do start to censor, then we open up a huge can of worms. Of course, blatantly offensive names are not permitted (per policy), but in cases such as this, I humbly suggest that, in the future, you seek other opinions before blocking. This is merely my opinion; best wishes. Smappy (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Dank/Archive 12 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Dank,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Confused

Hi there! I've been rereading some of my RfA comments (as any good editor should), and I came upon something a tad confusing that I didn't really notice the first time around. Here's a timeline:

• June 18 2008: You initiated an editor review which specifically asked participants to "be brutal" and which promised that you would not cry out "ZOMG! What they said! AGF! AGF!"
• July 4–5 2008: I post my brutal comments.
• July 7 2008: You thanked me for my brutal comments.
• July 18 2008: I post another brutal comment about the implementation (or perceived lack thereof) of my previous brutal comments.
• July 18 2008 – February 26 2009: No response given to my final editor review comment on the editor review page or my talk page. No indication of any kind that you thought my comments were uncivil, unconstructive, poorly worded, insensitive, or too brutal. No attempt to clarify any potential miscommunication.
• March 1 2009: You cite the editor review as an example of how I can be "too much" and as evidence of a "communication problem".

If you felt that my sentiments expressed in the editor review were poorly communicated and so brutal as to surpass your initial request to specifically be brutal, why did you not make any attempt to communicate with me about it for 7 months? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're considering running again, I don't plan to comment or vote in your next RfA. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 00:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Err, that doesn't really answer my question. The goal of reexamining a failed RfA is not to try to insure a successful one, but to improve as an editor in general. I'm not trying to "scare off" the previous oppose !voters from my next RfA (which I'm not planning to do any time soon), I'm simply trying to resolve what appears to be some sort of disjointed conflict. Clearly there was some miscommunication or lack of communication somewhere along the line! So again, looking over the timeline above, did I miss something that would explain this discrepancy? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There's only a "discrepancy" if you believe that "Thank you both for commenting, and you've given me some good ideas" always means "I agree with everything you just said and how you said it." Read back through some RfAs, and see how often the candidates thank people for comments that they don't agree with. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to agree with everything I said or how I said it. Here's what I simply cannot wrap my head around: you made it your mission to paint me as a person who is difficult to work with, yet the only time we had ever interacted and the only real example you were able to give was the editor review in which you specifically asked people to be brutal and I did exactly that. I'm now asking you a third time: why? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask someone else. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a course of action that would not solve anything, for we are the only two editors involved. Fourth attempt: why? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)