Ok, so my last attempt at taking a break didn't work, but now I'm REALLY taking a break, honest! (yeah right, who am I fooling?) , and archiving just before. :-) I'm not gone or away or anything so don't dare miss me! I might even still edit a bit. Just I gotta fix RL stuff too eh?
New messages here, in case you still need me. (Hopefully not too much :-) )
I was refered to you by Essjay who said you speak Dutch and English fluently. I was hoping if you had time you could help me by translating the Dutch Wikipedia Oil pastel page which I believe if this can be done will help the English Wikipedia Oil pastel page a lot. If you haev time please leave a message on my user page if you are able to translate this for me. Thank you very much. :) Graxe 03:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your break, but do come back. And bring me back something pretty! --fvw* 03:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
You are my hero, and I offer you a token--something I just discovered. It is chocolate--without sugar--straight chocolate. It is incredible! I started from dark roasted cacao nibs--crunched beans. Then I moved to bars of 99% straight cocoa butter--Theobroma--food of the gods. You are a god, straight up. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 03:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kim. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Kim, I liked the conversation on #wikimedia. I found this article: http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/nov04/nov04c.html It is written a year ago about a scenario that now unfolded on NO. Some topdogs do claim now it was not foreseen - I would like to have it documented very well - sum of all knowledge is sum of all knowledge - especially disaster planning. Have you any idea where to put this story? Gebruiker:Dedalus 11:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (I was wrong about no evacuation order - Ray Nagin called a 'mandatory evacuation' on August 29th)[reply]
It is going to fail. While I am glad I have kept it from going down to fights like it did last time, there are some things they want me to do that I do not have the ability to, and from what I checked earlier, many of the references have gone away. So, I took it off my watchlist and wait for Raul to remove it. I already closed three of my noms early, so I will let Raul take care of that one. Don't worry, I got some more backlogs to clear anyways. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It definately sounds like a good idea to work together on that... I'm not sure how to. Maybe esperenza is a start, although I'd like to see a "Don't bite anybody" rule someday ;). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kim: Just thought I'd drop you a note to let you know that I've done the new version of the medcab that we discussed on IRC, and I would be most grateful if you would review it and offer any changes/criticism/flames as appropriate :-). I've made it a bit more serious, and I am hopeful that if all seems to be well we can set about integrating it into the dispute resolution pages. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull 04:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this to talk since Darkfred is being trollish.
Illinoisian 17:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MattisManzel 11:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC): Marvelous bear above btw. Kim, I puzzled a bit on hive-wiki after our chat yesterday.[reply]
Dear Kim: Thank you so much for supporting my adminship! I consider the trust that you have placed in me a great honour, both through the trust that you have placed in me as maintainer of the Mediation Cabal and through your support of my adminship, and I do sincerely hope that I meet up to your expectations. Your continued company, advice, and support - especially when I have been going through a somewhat rough time - are irreplaceable, and I am most greatly indebted to you for the help that you have provided to me. I promise to do my very best as an administrator, and to use my newly-bestowed privileges to assist the community as much as I possibly can. I shall see you around on IRC, and on the wiki; I very much look forward to continuing to converse and work with you. Once again, thank you. :) Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 02:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you're on a well deserved break, and I don't want to seem like campaigning, but as you nominated me previously, I thought it only right to tell you that I'm now back on requests for adminship. Rob Church Talk | FAD 09:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe you're right...but...how in the world does he do that? *scratches head* --Phroziac(talk) 14:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I've decided that I should slow down a bit, especially when servers have a high load. And perhaps I'll get one of those things, what is it called - oh yes, a life :-) Mindmatrix 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Get some rest and come back eventually :) - maybe when you do the servers will actually not be slow, LOL :).Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I went outside to look for my passport in my car, because I haven't seen it in a few days, but I forgot to take my keychain with me, locking myself out in the process. So I sat outside for three hours until someone came home to let me in. I wasn't ignoring you :) Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind comment on my talk page, Kim; and thank you for having nominated me the first time round, even though it failed. I admit even I was shocked at the superb positive outcome of my latter nomination, but perhaps I misjudged how much of an impact I'd made. All the best, Rob Church Talk | FAHD 16:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess you're still only only at "limited activity," but since that's a step up, and I saw your arbcom candidacy, I thought I'd take the time to say welcome back! I'm sure you and your evil :-) were missed by lots of people. I hope you're up to the job (personally I'd rather be a mediator) but that means you're going to have to stick around. Good luck. Happy to see you around again. Now take a deep breath and dive back in! Dmcdevit·t 21:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have been named as one of the subjects of an RfC at [2] --Silverback 06:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[3] --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, I don't use IRC/AIM/ICQ, etc. With particular regard to Wikipedia, I feel they are external to the process and place an undue amount of material out of sight of people who do not use IRC, etc. Further, I'm not aware of any log of actions on IRC so there's no reference base to refer to for dispute resolutions. Indeed, this is one of the things that I think has been the basis of the RfC against me; there were things going on outside of Wikipedia that I did not know about and could not respond to. I acted with the information that was available to me, yet I feel that I have been accused in part on a basis of the communications outside of Wikipedia. If there's something you feel you need to discuss with me privately, you can e-mail me. However, in general, I'd prefer to keep any discussion on this transparent though I defer to your judgement since you know of what it is you want to talk. --Durin 19:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming my meta request. Thanks :-) Kim Bruning 01:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dude - my version is totally better than that. :-P Phil Sandifer 21:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Recognizing that WP:5P wasn't policy was an easy call; the instant I looked at it, I knew it isn't official policy. It isn't labeled as such, and had never gotten any serious discussion of its status on its talk page. While the 'pillars' it indicates are certainly generally accepted, I don't think citing accepted policy is enough to automatically make something policy itself. It could be a guideline, but it just doesn't seem to be offering any guidelines; it's more of a general statement of Wikipedia philosophy... and, again, it has never been discussed or accepted as a guideline. A page that attempts to summarize the philosophy behind existing policy and is neither policy nor guideline itself can only be an essay about that philosophy. I do think that it could be policy at some point (there's nothing wrong with a policy that attempts to outline philosophy--much of WP:NOT follows that pattern), but right now, given that it's neither accepted policy nor listed anywhere as proposed policy, I don't see where it could be categorized beyond "essay." --Aquillion 06:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
can we please discuss the momentum we have already gathered under the refinement of WP:XD before you revert my edits? ∴ here…♠ 08:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comments about "WTF" and "Keep this guy away from image editors" were very uncalled for. I know my way around Photoshop a hell of a lot better than most people. Everyone makes mistakes, and I fully admit temporarily lost my mind and oversharpened the image, but I didn't deserve that kind of abuse. Take a look at my image gallery, and specifically, my featured pictures gallery. There you will find images that have been sharpened correctly and have proper tonal adjustments. Well, most of the good ones that I cared to fix properly at any rate.
User:PiccoloNamek/Gallery
User:PiccoloNamek/Gallery/Featured Pictures
I didn't get 14 (as soon as the promotion procedures for the two images I have up now are completed) featured pictures because I don't know how to properly edit an image. What you said was extremely insulting, and goes beyond what I would normally consider criticism.PiccoloNamek 01:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that's nice of you to say, but perhaps I don't deserve to be defended. I really did treat these people like crap. I was crude, rude, mean, and made a rather spectacular display of my own ignorance. I behaved in a way totally unbecoming of a Wikipedian. I think my WikiReputation meter just dropped from around 95-98% to 70% or so. And besides, perhaps not all of my edits were of as high a quality as I thought. I just uploaded a new version of the Mexican Beaded Lizard Picture. (Non-downsampled, lol.) Check out the new one and compare it to the original upload: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BeadedLizard-AHPExotics.jpg
Ouch! The original had too much contrast, and was fuzzy and poorly sharpened and heavily oversaturated. And the new one still has some problems that I couldn't fix, especially on the brightly lit scales on his back and head. But I did my best. Perhaps I should go and fix some of my other pictures too.PiccoloNamek 09:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the things is, once I've clicked on the thumbnail, and then clicked on the image again in its image page, it isn't being downsampled by anything anymore. For some reason, you all seem to be hung up on thumbnails though. It's none of my concern anymore, however. I'm done arguing.PiccoloNamek 07:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"When you click on the image on the image page itself, you get access to the original (hopefully undownsampled) image. :-) "
Yeah, but the problem is, I have an old, crappy camera, that takes old, crappy looking pictures, full of severe image noise (even at ISO 64), obviously visible demosaicing artifacts, and general overall fuzziness. Downsampling by half seems to remedy these problems somewhat. But from what I've been told, this is all a big illusion, so if Wikipedia wants full-size images, Wikipedia will get full size images, demosaicing artifacts and all. Sure, they wouldn't be visible in any thumbnail, or even on the image page, but they would in the original. =( PiccoloNamek 08:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm attempting to write all rules on a single page, which should be easy since we have very few rules in the first place. I'm adding some common misconceptions, such as the idea that all 3RR-violators must be blocked, or that all perceived POV warriors must be deadminned. Your feedback would be appreciated. Radiant_>|< 23:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
An Award | |
I, grm_wnr, award this old skool barnstar to Kim Bruning for his valiant effort to reintroduce sanity into the Speedy Deletion process.
--User:Grm_wnr 01:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] |
Aloha, Kim. I appreciate you getting involved in this matter, as I feel the more Wikipedians that attempt to help Eddie, the better. Perhaps you could help facilitate the CheckUser end of things. You'll find that Eddie is behind the accounts listed in the category. I'm not sure why he's playing these games, but contrary to his vehement protestations, the socks belong to him as many of his edits have already demonstrated. You may also want to check out his website to understand the full scope of this matter. See also: User_talk:NSLE#Eddies_accounts. --Viriditas 10:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: Eddie's becoming a less-contained problem rapidly. Looking at their edits leaves little doubt that the accounts in the sockpuppet category are either Eddie's, or the results of a masterfully-orchestrated smear campaign agaist this new user. I'm not sure CheckUsering is going to do much; he jumps from IP to IP quite a bit. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exicornt is more-or-less the focal point for all this. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to respond, but since you insisted...
Because what you were doing counts, at best, as a violation of WP:POINT. CSD's established, all the CSDs had to pass a huge threshold of voting to pass, and you're disrupting WP to make the point that you think CSDs are a bad idea rather than trying to talk people into proposing a vote on the issue, to be held on at least the same threshold as proposing a new CSD (75% IIRC), rather than trying to ramrod through your changes in the dead of night (literally). - SoM 19:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail for you, Kim. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kim. I have lobbed your thought at the UK Wikipedians, here. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hope to see more of you around. Trollderella 20:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kim.
I need Your help in cleaning up a mess of "sock" tags on experimental accounts I created. I would like following User:Hompages redirected to User:EddieSegoura:
I've been trying to do this Myself, but user NSLE (and other users as well) persistantly keep restorign the tages. It's frustrating.
Perhaps we can work on merging the accounts altogether before this gets out of hand? -- Eddie 08:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor/Workshop. As you are an advocate for a party you may comment as a party. Fred Bauder 00:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this. I knew it was you, even before I checked the history, from the mention of "brownie points". I really am trying to change the way I interact at Wikipedia, and I think this will help. Thanks. Uncle Ed 21:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am very puzzled. On 3 December, I am evidently being attacked for a a vote that I cast in August on an RfA. The vote was a Weak Oppose, based on the fact that he had apparently defined consensus as 100%. There were and are several ongoing content disputes where one disruptive editor is asked to respect consensus, and says that there is no consensus if he does not agree. It appears that RI then restated his position, and I did not watchlist the RfA, and RI did not tell me that he had restated his position. As of 3 December, Gmaxwell posts what I consider a strong personal attack on my talk page, and then you ask me what was my reasoning. My reasoning is simply that the definition of consensus as 100% permits a troll or disruptive editor to exercise a liberum veto. I had had not subsequent interaction with RI or Gmaxwell between August and now. I will have to research the problem further. Thank you for at least asking me a reasoned question rather than slamming me. Robert McClenon 15:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, I saw your comments on IRC regarding my closing of RfAs. I'm not closing them. I never have, even badly failing RfAs (I've been a staunch opponent of early removal of RfAs). As mindspillage (I think that's who it was) noted, not all bureaucrats close out RfAs properly. I don't "close" the RfAs. I watch for RfAs that close, and if the RfA has not had any of; the proper header/footer attached, the "vote here" link removed, and the ending time updated, I edit the RfA to close out the RfA properly. I'm not closing anything, I'm just closing it out properly. Please give me the benefit of the doubt in the future before blasting me on IRC, ok? :) --Durin 15:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, are you coming on IRC any time soon? Could you ping me when you're next on? :) Talrias (t | e | c) 02:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kim,
I am writing to appeal to you to change your course in three separate areas related to discussions of policy. They go from least to most urgent.
I've taken some time to write all this down; I hope you will consider it. In acting according to my conscience and understanding of current community consensus, I have opposed you on these issues before; it would genuinely upset me to continue butting heads with you on the same issues. Thank you, SCZenz 21:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote on Jimbo's page "I'm a bit worried about editing a page history, that just seems ... wrong ... to me, like alexandria library wrong. When will we stop doing this?" Could I ask what this means? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I completly agree with you. Even before I read your statement I wrote to Jimbo at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Newspeak_warning stating my views on this. History pages should be untouchable - or we will lose much credibility.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Mr. Bruning,
I've been away for a good bit, and just decided to pop in and see what was new. I would give you a response to the Rl thing, but it appears to have blown over already. At any rate, Mr. Maxwell is being a bit rude to total strangers, and I would ask that you don't encourage him anymore. I'm not holding my breath, though. :)
Anyway, I'll have more time to edit and have loud disagreements with you on IRC in January. Talk to you more later, Kim. Fernando Rizo 23:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you meant by that at Talk:Unguided evolution?Guettarda 22:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure from your comments on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) whether you are talking about the same trend I have seen, but I think too many people are saying that adminship is "no big deal" and then turning around and voting not to give people the tools based on factors they have in their minds as to what an admin should be. That implies that adminship is a post of honor (or at least duty) rather than simply being given access to some tools that newcomers might misuse, either intentionally or from a lack of understanding. See my comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Awolf002, for example. A couple of the people voting "oppose" on that RFA were up for adminship themselves and I was tempted to question them publicly on their own RFA's about their positions on what adminship means, but I decided that would just create more negativity. I don't like what I am seeing; I think it is destructive and ends up needlessly alienating good editors who are forced to forego the use of the tools when there is virtually zero chance that they will misuse them.. -- DS1953 18:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, I hold you in high regards as far as your contributions to Wikipedia...I have no reservations about your judgement. I will have to look over the discussion again to see what exactly is going on, but I would prefer to not have HamsterSandwichs RfA go through another nomination process. My attitude is that if he does close AfD's incorrectly now that he is an admin, then that would be the time to go to arbitration. Is the risk so great that he will screw up to justify a recall? I am not sure, but if you feel that way, then I respect that. I also apologize if I made your comments seem unimportant. I just saw a sort of witch hunt manifesting and that worried me. We are just human and we are going to make mistakes.--MONGO 04:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was worried about the de-adminning thing as I know it will result in some really bad sentiments. I don't completely disagree with you and I won't be chiming in there uninvited...probably not even if I am invited I won't add or subtract. You must do what you think is best for Wikipedia, but I do not see that Hamster Sandwich is going to end up being a threat...heck, there are a few admins that raise my eyebrows and I say to myself..how the heck did you get to be an admin...but I imagine there are plenty of folks that feel the same way about me!--MONGO 04:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, way back when you first found out about the Rl thing I told you that I'd support RFA reform 100%, but turing this into a witchhunt would be counterproductive. You even agreed with me. So tell me, what do you have in mind? Back when you were still fuming about Hamster Sandwich on IRC, I asked you to actually get to know the guy. A vote and a question on an RFA in August have little or no bearing on his qualifications to be an admin. I'm dismayed that, rather than get to know him, you've taken the witchhunt route. Hamster Sandwich is friendly and helpful, experienced in the article namespace, shows good judgment, and I know personally he has no problems with asking for help or other opinions. He is qualified to be an admin, and your actions are increasingly iritating me. He's a warm person [4], [5], [6]. In fact, Hamster Sandwich is not the kind of admin I'd expect to block RN in a personal dispute out of policy, or to delete the conlangs vote or the vote bar template unilaterally, or to block Mel Etitis for a trifle of a misunderstanding. Kim, it looks to me, and I'm sure others, like you are trying to prove something here, and the disruption is serious. You can disagree with HS all you want, publicly and vehemently even, but this is simple harassment. It's no clerical error your upset about, but Hammster Sandwich's adminship itself. If it's just a bureaucrat mistake we're talking about, I'm sure we can get it sorted out between the bureaucrat and HS without arbcom. The fact is, Hamster Sandwich's adminship represents nothing adverse for the Wikipedia community. But this RFAr, the harassment, I'm sure you know, people have left for less than this. There will be admins you will disagree with. Go ahead and disagree with them. Almost nothing they do is irreversible anyway. There's supposed to be an encyclopedia somewhere around here, and even though it looks like you (and I) haven't touched it in weeks, the irony is that Hamster Sandwich is working on it. I know this is a rant, and actually I planned on it being a rant, but I've been quiet too long, and I know you have better things to do than this. Dmcdevit·t 05:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Truffle#Truffled_turkey. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, pending the production of a full final draft of your dissertation. When that is done, you will be immediately unblocked upon request to me or PZFUN. Please do NOT ask anybody else to unblock you! You have also been softbanned from IRC. Please restrict chatting on #wikipedia and related channels to not more than one hour a day. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 10:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
[8] :) --Durin 16:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there Kim: Some time ago, way back in ancient history (well, in 'net time at least) you made a request at the Mediation Cabal for a mediator to have a look at the Conspiracy theory argument involving Zen master et al. I have just finished the new version of the medcab process - each case now has an individual page, and just a link from the medcab page rather than a whole bunch of template-added requests. I am wading through the cases one by one - I know this is laughably late, but I have left a message on the article talk page for people to comment on the mediation page if there is any way that a mediator might be able to help out. If you think this case is still required, I would be grateful if you would let me know, either on the talk page or at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/30 November 2005/Conspiracy theory. Thanks, and all the best with your dissertation, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.
The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.
I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.
Thank you. Rob Church Talk 20:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...which I know will not be for a while, could you please drop me a line? I'd like to discuss the possibility of renominating User:Tznkai for admin. Many thanks. BYT 16:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is adding one-line summaries to all policy pages. I would like to hear your opinion on that. Radiant_>|< 22:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm back, trying to get back up to speed, looking forward to catching up with you. Hey, I got removed as a cabalist!! What the heck!!
--Wgfinley 06:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they thought you were at Cross Purposes http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/The_Ghetto_Gospel_of_Intelligent_Design http://double00.blogspot.com/
Merry Christmas and Happy Kwaanzaa! 1000 Candles of Light to you! -Chris B.
The arbitration committee has reachead a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor case. Raul654 18:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, here, and with a bit more vociferousness, leading to my one and only [albeit short-lived] block, here. You wanted to know, so there it is. :-p Tomertalk 09:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, Kim! Too bad you're entrenched in your dissertation as you should be. There's another Boston meetup Monday, possibly followed by contradancing. info Get that thing finished so you can have some fun, eh. j 18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Jus so you know...I think User:Noitall is gone. Hasn't made an edit since early October...but you probably already knew that.--MONGO 03:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! You're back! Does this mean your dissertation is done? How did it go? Revisions? If so, how bad? Oh wait...nevermind (just looked at the block log)...you're visiting somewhere and the unblock is temporary :/ Bummer! As to your questions; yes I think asking an admin's interpretation of WP:IAR would be a good idea as a 4th question. As for reviewing your criteria, my wife is expecting me to get off the computer right now so I gotta run :) I'll get you some feedback over the weekend. --Durin 03:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick message to let you know I haven't been eaten by evil savages, I'm alive and well. I haven't been able to reply to your text messages because for soem reason my phone won't let me send SMses overseas and I misplaced my American SIM card. I am so sorry I am not there to be with you for your last few days in the US, but know that you're in my thoughts and that I hope you can come back ASAP! User:PZFUN/signature 18:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there,
The area I felt you failed to address was my second question-part (regarding administrative action.) Your re-reading addressed this to some degree, but I guess I'm still confused. See, I believe there is a great distinction between an editor (admin or no) following IAR in editing (which is a good way to relieve stress), and an admin justifying a deletion on those grounds (which can be an arbitrary action, difficult for normal users to reverse.) Make sense? I'll happily revise my vote if warranted once we clear this up. Xoloz 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kim! Sorry if my comment sounded a bit harsh, but it was intended to :) I'd love to ask each candidate questions that bother me, but, with 50+ candidates, it took me four straight hours just to read through all the statements/answers to the questions, trying to figure out whom to support and whom not to. As you can imagine, in such circumstances candidate statements are really important, and yours just looked as if you didn't really care. Since I know you can do much better than that, I left a comment that probably was not too pleasant-sounding. As far as my recommendation to fleshing your statement, I would recommend to scrap it altogether and write it a-new (yes, I think it's that bad, sorry).
I'll think over the questions I have for you and ask them later, when my eyes stop hurting from the four-hour session of intense staring into the screen :) Meanwhile, take care and best of luck to you with your ArbComm run!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kim, I've just noticed you have changed your statement (I wanted to read everyone's statements before I voted and I read yours before you made the changes). Having read the alterations I am now satisfied that you have the necessary commitment to the ArbCom, I will change my vote accordingly. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Rje 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that the draft is completed? If so, congrats! If not - take this as a kind nag to get back to work (from someone who took three years longer to finish than they should have because they let themselves get distracted by stuff) - the elections will take care of themselves. Guettarda 17:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement now looks good. Vote changed. Good luck! Dr. Cash 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.
If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from my user talk page. DES (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Hmmm, we may not have always seen eye to eye, but process does appear something that's quite under-represented on wikipedia. Due to our history, I'm slightly skeptical if you might be promoting nomic over encyclopedia, but I'm going to hold my breath and see what happens :-) Kim Bruning 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, I can generate the graph that you need. I keep track of a number of figures, including number of articles and users. Just let me know what you specifically need, and I can do it for you. --Durin 13:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of context... a select few users (Snowy and Tony in particular) insist that there is violent opposition to the recreation of any article deleted with a narrow consensus, but have been unwilling to substantiate this statement with evidence. It is my opinion (and confirmed by DRV) that if an article is deleted for being crappy or unverified, then you can create a worthwhile article on the same subject and nobody much will object. The "2/3" in that statement is me citing either of them on a definition of "narrow consensus".
On the consensus page, that's a different matter. Newbies often ask, what does it take to get an article deleted. Or not deleted, of course. If the answer is "consensus", then they will generally either wrongly assume it means "unanimity", or ask what we mean by that. Then they see their favorite article deleted with 75% support (or not deleted with 55% support), and they yell "hey, that's not consensus!"
So the page Wikipedia:Consensus is there to point that out. It should be obvious that 67% is not the definition of consensus, but the reality of the matter is that on WP:AFD, unless either side has substantially better argumentation, 67%-75% support for deletion is considered indicative of consensus.
Radiant_>|< 15:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I've been on Wikibreak for two months; so while my memory of the impression is clear, the facts are hazy. Sometime around the Ed Poor flap there was an issue on AfD (or TfD?) in which you adjudicated as deletion, and there was much controversy. I recall this as rising to an RfC, but I can't find it; it was one of the inspirations for making Undeletion into Deletion Review, IIRC. I have a vivid memory of considering your actions unreasonable and protesting; but not why. In other matters, I recall being impressed by your conduct; so I was so struck partly by surprise. Septentrionalis 20:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cut/paste job, but thought you might like to know. Radiant_>|< 01:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kim, thanks for your note. I plan to review all my votes later this weekend after I've had more time to check them over, in case I was too harsh. I'm open to reconsider. Good luck. HGB 00:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kim for your assistance in working on Electroconvuslive Therapy article. IMHO, we have a breach of the 3RR here, but I can't do that much closer to squat diddly, as I am not an admin. I hope we can prevent an edit war on this article if possible. Regards, and thanks. Thor Malmjursson 04:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Talk to Thor[reply]
WTF? OMG LOL!!!
Thank you for that page! I really enjoyed reading it (and it is so true!) I hope I will remember WP:NOT to overuse these acronyms. Kusma (討論) 01:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize parrots are hardly at the center of your universe of interests...I did my best to translate the article nl:Bergparkiet into English as Regent Parrot. I would appreciate any touch up you could do ... notice I left a few words/phrases in dutch in the English article (albeit commented out). Thanks for your help! Tomertalk 08:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My vote took into consideration the original candidate statement, the revised statement, and the questions and answers. Some things that I noticed were the extremely brief original statement, a lack of a strong principle on how you viewed Arbitration in the revised statement, and some responses to the questions I felt were unsatisfactory. As I said, please don't take my vote personally, as Arbitration may not be for everyone, and I voted with an extremely high standard (the number of people I supported can be counted on my fingers). I hope that answers your questions. Thanks! Flcelloguy (Anote?) 16:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought he might find it funny. --—Viriditas | Talk 03:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, he has said he does want the image here. Cheers Arniep 13:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You keep pointing out that there are things wrong with the division (though generally pointing at details rather than the structure as a whole). I was wondering what you would propose to solve it. Radiant_>|< 22:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. We have not talked before so this is by way of an introduction. I saw that you are one of my pending coaches and I want to thank you. Whenever you have time would be fine as I know you are busy. Thank you again for the opportunity.--Dakota ~ ε 00:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I disagree, and a quick check through his contributions confirms my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby promise to stay on for a year if I get it. Hit me!
Oh, some really good reasons why:
Um, that's it. Alphax τεχ 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think that in all aspects you are performing above and beyond all expectations.
Our last discussion on IRC gave a different impression, because I am an idiot. My apologies. Please *PLEASE* continue your work here.
Kim Bruning 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, it is not a modern wikipedia custom to remove other people's comments. I have not done it in over a year I believe. However, in this case I feel it is warrented to temporarily revert you , while we discuss this, if you feel like it.
If you truely insist, I shall reinstate your comment immediately, but please contact me before doing so.
Kim Bruning 00:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kim -- I am punting a case to you. Take the ball, Kim! Run with it!
Here is Cabal/Cases/24 January_2006/Democratic_peace_theory the case. Here was my attempt to resolve the dispute: [10] (which was rejected by one of the parties.)
Good luck! I've found it's better just to go to the talk page, instead of having people fill out the "mediation questionnaire" as they go along.
Sdedeo (tips) 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't revert your revert - I mixed my version (with merge tag) and your version (wihout one) to come up with the current version (which reads "mergedisputed"). If you discuss the merging of two pages on a third uninvolved page, you can pretty much expect people not to find your remark. And I have no idea what you mean by kervanishing; I've been marking some old policy proposals as rejected or historical, why do you have a problem with that? Radiant_>|< 13:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about your hand; a hand accident was part of what kept me away for two months - although there were larger reasons, one of which you may be able to guess.
I hope we entertain you in the meantime. Septentrionalis 02:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's up? I'm on IRC a bit at the moment, but my hours are fairly unpredictable, as I don't have internet access at home anymore, so I'm only on whenever I can be bothered walking somewhere that does. Ambi 02:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of (1) people who want numbers off the WP:CON page, and (2) the obvious fact that those numbers are in use, there is now a movement of people who created the "supermajority" page and seem to think that several places in WP (e.g. RFA/AFD) work by supermajority rather than consensus. Looks like the previous plan backfired; any suggestions on how to fix that? Radiant_>|< 07:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm guessing you agree with what I said? -- Samuel Wantman 11:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I read it. Is it time to discuss? Sounds like Alkivar doesn't want to work on a collaborative, neutrally-written encyclopedia, is what it sounds like to me. I think he'd rather work on collaborative Alkivar-style content. (One with lots of dodgy copyrighted works, defended via personal attack.) It's also quite interesting when people proclaim Wikipedia is a failure. Will fail, that we can have a discussion about, but is a failure? It takes a narrow definition of "success" to make that case; far too narrow for me.
I think my two points have something to do with each other. Intelligent people who don't enjoy what Wikipedia actually is eventually get fed up with it and leave, a self-reinforcement cycle that actually ends up making Wikipedia more successful, perhaps? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be cryptic please. Radiant_>|< 18:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We differ over Gmaxwell, but I usually find you to be a good sort, with a good way of seeing through the bullshit. But I'd like to know who you think pursued a crusade against him? Not Slim, I hope. He was horrible to her. He makes no allowance whatsoever for the person he is brusquely making demands of not understanding why he is making the demands. It's not cause for incivility that someone else doesn't have as clear a view of "the right thing" as you do; it's cause for explaining it carefully. When I stepped in to ask for specific instances, because a/ I'm more understanding of his concerns and b/ better able to describe them to Slim, he was rude to me and refused to. I didn't leave that exchange thinking what a great crusader for the wikiright he is. I left thinking what a bully, pushing around other editors, with bugger all substance when one stood up to him.
Now, look, no one's suing WP for using copyrighted images inappropriately, and no one is likely to in a hurry. If we had a demand to take an image down, I'd understand more urgency. It's a concern and I agree it should be fixed but it's not so urgent that it must be fixed yesterday. The problem's been noticed and we're making good-faith attempts to fix it. Where's the need of hurting decent editors in the process and why defend that? Grace Note 04:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Thanks for signing up in Wikipedia:Esperanza's Admin coaching program. Since you've volunteered to help train a user, I've assigned DakotaKahn to you and to your partner, Aranda56. Please make sure to be kind and helpful to your coachee. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks again! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I got yours and Titoxds message this am. I would like to send you an email about what I would like to use admin abilities for rather than post it here, if that would be acceptable. Thank you.--Dakota ~ ε 19:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not leave false information on my user talk page. Please do not make threats on my user talk page. -- 68.50.103.212 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm "nach0king" from IRC, wondering about the greylist system. We seemed to think it was automated but you said you'd check it out. I know you're busy so please don't rush yourself over it. Nach0king 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This two templates doesn't work for me. Instead of the smiley, some huge block of text is displayed. Try using {{:-)}} or {{:)}} on a page and wou'll see. I'm telling this to you only because you are their creator. --giandrea 03:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly allow quoting of everything I have written in comments by others. However, the original comment by me should be presented in the complete and original form before the comments by others. The comments on this by others and the quoting may of course split the original text. As every writer, I wish to preserve a record of my original argument to avoid distortion. I find it necessary to state this plainly due to may past experience on this article, where my comments have been distorted by selectively splitting and moving them relative to later comments by others, often to create an incomprehensible travesty of what I stated originally. Ultramarine 18:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man, i'm certainly glad not everybody on here has devolved into the Wikipedia=Free Beer crowd :-) I normally give the bear in this instance, but I see that he ate your wikivacation already. Karmafist 20:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the Democratic Userbox, let's think rationally here...
What I don't understand is how the Wikimedia Foundation can get from Step 2 to a Step 3 of...
Hell, sometimes I feel like i'm on the verge of leaving the party sometimes myself, since they often think in non sequitur like Step 2 to Step 3 on other issues.
Karmafist 20:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, they may not earn more profits from doing so, and then would just stop using the image.
Look, with the Red Sox, I understand. They make money off that icon. The Democrats though, that's just cutting off a nose to spite a face. Karmafist 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say for example, that instead of Corn Flakes, the Ku Klux Klan uses the Democratic image in order to hurt the Democrats(the KKK is generally unpopular, and the Democrats generally hold viewpoints that are contrary to theirs). That's probably the only legitimate reason not to allow permission in regards to the logo, but ultimately it isn't...
Because... If the Democratic Party was doing WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, that would instantly not work because anyone seeing the KKK doing this would say "That's just a baseless ploy, I automatically know that the KKK has views contrary to the Democratic Party through external influences."
That's the only reason I could think of for them not to allow use of their logo, and if they used that reason, I couldn't in good conscience associate with them on anything anymore other than a superficial nature or when our goals are the same, thus making it pragmatic to work with them. Karmafist 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll just have to give me some time, remind me to call Gaetan again, and remember that I've been on the inside with this and I know what i'm talking about. And if you don't believe me, I have some proof here on WP. Check out 2004 New Hampshire General Court Election, then Hillsborough 19, and then the only blue link there... ;-) If my career solidifies, I hope to be there at 2006 New Hampshire General Court Election. Karmafist 21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it's you that said something on my talk page, I just took a shower, and I need to go to work, but this stems to something deeper. Oh, what the hell, I might be able to boil part of it down right now.
In the past i've had problems with blurring "roles". We all have multiple roles that we play: for example, you're Kim Bruning the person, Kim Bruning the Wikipedian, Kim Bruning the "X", Kim Bruning the "Y", etc. Often these roles are conflicting and contradictory, but even this is ok if we are forthright about it and understand the meanings of those roles and their boundaries.
In the past, I have not, particularly in regards to Democratic Party politics in this area, and my anger at their recent political cowardice in the past few years plus my Asperger's Syndrome induced paranoia and my inability to clearly define the roles I play, as stated above, has caused me harm and turned into a minor martyr complex deal some of the time, well with the Party(who has been a political network and a social network for me, but the lines were often blurred, which is bad, as per my theorem above), as well as other groups.
Politics has been my preoccupation for the past 2 years, but I honestly don't know where I stand in it anymore. my town's Democratic Party sees me as a loose cannon, and I see them as a joke since they do nothing and we're outnumbered by 10%(in 2004, we lost every single race in town). My county's Democratic Party likely sees me as a sometimes useful ally, but also maybe a loose cannon because, quite frankly, I am honest when I shouldn't be because that is my nature. Beacon Street (the New Hampshire Democratic Party[14]) probably has me somewhere between a useful eccentricity and a naive pest(it'd be interesting if you asked them, my name is Andy Sylvia, in case I never said that before), and the National Party doesn't give a shit about me except for money, excluding the DNC members that I know.
I'm less cynical about Wikipedia, but i'm still cynical. The roles here are often not clear. Who "respects" me, who "likes" me, who "tolerates" me, and above all WHY.... That has been the burning question of my life regardless of where i've been, as long as i've lived. Understanding that.
This icon thing is pretty damn deep and layered. It's not just free speech or a WP:POINT thing, and there's probably more layers to it with me, but I'm glad I could share the surface with you here. Karmafist 21:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My, aren't you the snippy one these days. >Radiant< 22:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scooped? Make mine vanilla, please. Thanks for pointing it out, I'm looking over the thread now. By the way, the savaging that I warned you of has been unearthed! Now you don't have to go looking through diffs to see me saying mean things about you. I'll have to as some stage learn that trick of your: pepper the most outrageous comments with smily faces. ^_^
brenneman(t)(c) 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. Sceptre had to take his CGIIRC client down because it violated his host's TOS, and the alternative he pointed out isn't working. Ambi 01:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help. I've had enough for today (I'm going to head home soon, but waiting for some downloads to finish), but I'll give that a try tomorrow and see if I can get it working. Ambi 03:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I regret having to say this, and disturbing you; but Ultramarine has found the revert button again, and is spreading lies about the deleted subarticles. Please see WP:ANI#Democratic peace theory. Septentrionalis 06:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kim, where's my warning? I'm feeling really left out here (especially since I started it by reverting Talrias yesterday). I'm so sick of all that crap - disgusted and shocked by it all. I looked at it when it first came up and I said - user boxes and paedophile - no chance I was going to touch that. But hey, if you are plugged in to the beast socially, you can't avoid what flies off of the fan. Guettarda 22:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of what article should be at this title has been placed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. You can offer your vote and comment here: Talk:The Nation#Article title. JamesMLane t c 06:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two choices:
Take your pick. Septentrionalis 21:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultramarine has been uncharacteristically quiet this morning, and I find that User:Ultramarine/sandbox3 is the beginning of a massive rewrite, which will reestablish his full PoV, and already contains several exact phrases from the edit he wants to revert to.
If he imposes this on the article without discussion, would that violate the Arbcom ruling, as you read it? (And if the answer is "maybe", what would it depend on?)Septentrionalis 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was refered to you by Essjay who said you speak Dutch and English fluently. I was hoping if you had time you could help me by translating the Dutch Wikipedia Oil pastel page which I believe if this can be done will help the English Wikipedia Oil pastel page a lot. If you haev time please leave a message on my user page if you are able to translate this for me. Thank you very much. :) Graxe 03:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed your Oh, and I thought you were reasonable, and wanted to discuss with me. comment at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review and have responded belatedly. Apologies, I missed your reply to me, and to make my response easier to find I provide the diff. I have to admit, I've found your language obtuse and hard to understand, it frustrated me and I probably let that show. It could be I am entirely misunderstanding you. Still, the only way you stort these things out is by talking. Steve block talk 09:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, from the sounds of that page, it seems like Jimbo's caught it. Anywho, thanks for your support during this tough period. I've been knocked down like this before, but only I can knock me out, and that hasn't happened yet. Karmafist 14:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^ Heh, I'd agree that Jimbo's "caught it". Same thing with poor Ed Poor, as you said. Anyway, what "early symptoms" of adminitis would you say I have? I guess I could take some constructive criticism. Coffee 17:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've seen your name around wikiepdia quite a bit, and I just wanted to say hello. Very nice to meet you, and well...hi! ~-ZeroTalk 15:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a little impromptu. :-)
I jumped on #wikimedia today and generated some more interest in the Penn State Wiki. MartinMai was interested in classroom wikis with Wikiversity, and Sj was interested in doing the same sort of thing at Harvard. Gchriss 23:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give you a heads up, I've had some problems with User:NetoholicatWikipedia:Naming conventions (television). I wasn't aware until recently of his ban in wikipedia namespace and he has reverted my changes several time. Keep up the faith. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hoe zit het daarmee? (heb source en licentie gevonden ondertussen :))
Henna 13:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extending an apology because I don't quite extend good faith all the time and I reckon I probably didn't at Wikipedia talk@Deletion review. I think I'm going to leave off watching and commenting at policy pages, I've got too sidetracked into that. I think I'm coming round to the idea that too much stuff is being written down, which creates a lot of wikilawyering. I'm thinking now that I should just keep close to AGF and the trinity of Verifiability, NPOV and NOR and I'll be fine. I remember you starting some discussion regarding policy and guidelines at the pump a while back, it'd be nice if they got better delineated and there was less time worrying over the ins and outs of rulecruft. Still, apologies. Steve block talk 20:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kim, I know it seems like we have too many rules, and I agree for the most part -- we have too many rules that don't work. I just want a baseline of rules so we can avoid another incident like Tony's umpteen early deletions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. I'm thinking of modifying the manifesto a bit, please let me know if there's any way I can improve it as well.Karmafist 22:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, "Huge Numbers"... It's good to know the last 2 years of political activism in the real world haven't gone to waste. However, if you think the numbers now are big, just wait... :-) I'd love to hear how you disagree with it and how to fix that, by the way. Your opinion is important to me, but I think we both agree that something has to be done with the way things are going lately. Karmafist 00:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, my apologies if I pissed you off. That's not my intention, I just want to send some ideas over to fix the project. Karmafist 00:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting it, you might want to just try karmafist@aol.com Karmafist 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're talking about a certain Central European country who had a certain demogogue who used the tools of his broken government to take it over and now is a cliche for evil in the US. That's not my intention. I don't give a damn about power, I just want to make sure Wikipedia takes the shape of all Jimbo's platitudes (a free source of information for everybody, etc. etc.), and make sure it doesn't devolve into USENET or yet another information spigot controlled by a media mogul. Karmafist 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you're afraid of that happening(another cult to replace the current cult), which is why i'm asking for you to add some alternatives rather than just say "Stop!" It's just because I'm not going to stop, even if I saw a need to. You know as well as I do that this place is broken, and we need to do something. Maybe it could be a Radiant's admin poll style impliment, maybe you could give your own addendums, maybe people could just sign in agreement with certain parts of it, I don't know. All i'm saying is that while caution is important, it shouldn't lead to out and out fear. We're Wikipedians, we're used to sociocracy in afds and rfas and blank f blanks all the time. We don't just vote, we vote and think at the same time, and that's dying out with the groupthink that's overwhelming this place lately. Please, please, please, let me know what to do if you disagree with all or a part of what I said, and we'll see what we can do to fix it. Otherwise, i'm sorry, but this will have to be the end of our conversation tonight. Karmafist 01:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I apologize, that's just my nature, i'm a bit binary, and very pragmatic -- I have an innate need to fix social constructs it seems. Hell, I even invented a system of Parliamentary Procedure a year ago... ;-)
Don't worry though, as long as we keep talking, we'll get there. However, I have a favor to ask you -- could you move your thread to the talk page? I'm not saying that because I view it as inferior, quite the contrary, it just seems to fit better on the talk page. That's another thing that people often misunderstand in my opinion -- I see the two as part of a greater whole to make something unique, almost like a toolbox of communication, a hammer and a screwdriver if you would. However, if you used a screwdriver to drive in a nail, that wouldn't be as effective as the hammer, and if you used a hammer to screw in a screw, you'd be very frustrated.... Talk Pages work best when the meta talk is there, and Main pages work best when the content that the subject is about is there. At least, that's the way I see it. Karmafist 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know what you think, the hopeful answer(like I said, that's how I think -- in answers)is pretty raw. Hell, the entire document is pretty raw. It's ok, this is a wiki. Wikis are always a work in progress. Karmafist 01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I saw it while welcoming(should hit 2400 tonight). Just curious though, what graph do you mean? Anyway, despite our disagreements, I hope we can stay friendly in any case, I always appreciate your perspective on things. Karmafist 02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto buddy. I'm particularly proud of myself right now. I just saw on RC that Tony Sidaway has an rfar on him, and I was very tempted to say something there until I said to myself --- "wait, at worst, he's going to get a slap on the wrist, as a whole, the arbcom is a joke now anyway, why even bother looking at it?" and went back to welcoming. Man, if real life could as cathartic as that, i'd be in paradise. Unfortunately, my real life sucks right now... Karmafist 02:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rick Block gave me this idea when he said he only agreed with part 5 -- letting people agree with only parts of it, kind of looking like this...
User | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rick Block | x | ||||
Karmafist | x | x | x | x | x |
Whoever | x | x | x |
And so on...
People can put in footnotes in the squares where they have ideas to revise it. This would be just above or below the full signers part. What do you think?Karmafist 20:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might work, although to be honest, i'd prefer if the core of it was kept. So instead, let's try the RFC model with a few tweaks
Sorry if it seems like i'm trying to reinvent the wheel, but I guess i'm trying to shed a bit of the old Wikipedia in this, and RFCs, especially article RFCs, rarely worked well before excluding a few exceptions(Radiant's poll comes to mind.) Karmafist 03:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, I normally archive around every 30 comments or so.
Ok. If you're tired, step back. I don't want to lose you as a friend over this. We're just having miscommunication on this, and we'll get through it. Karmafist 16:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
eeps,
kan je mij eens poken op irc? ik lees precies elke keer over jouw. Henna 17:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then please provide an alternative suggestion with respect to dispute resolution. Guettarda 15:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kim,
I noticed that you posted a request for emergency arbitration here. In your statement, you mentioned that users posting information that they had found about User:Agapetos_angel were violating the Foundation Privacy Policy. Upon reading the page, I saw no condemnation of any kind for the type of actions you describe. If I'm just dense and missing something, could you point it out?
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 04:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kim!
For future reference, since it's SUCH an IMPORTANT matter <g>, it's Whac-A-Mole, not Whack-a-Mole. (The reason I know that is I'm a lawyer and I've been writing a brief in a $1 million+ federal court lawsuit involving denial of health plan benefits and . . . believe it or not . . . I managed to work the term Whac-a-Mole into the brief.)
And, being anal-retentive I suppose, I checked to find the correct spelling! (For the life of me, I can't understand why people say I get too caught up in minutia . . .)
And, yes, I found the detailed history of Whac-a-Mole on Wikipedia!
Have a great day!
I like the Kiwi in clogs, from your userpage :) Brian | (Talk) 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Req._Emergency_injunction_on_posting_personal_info.
Don't you even have the basic courtesy to inform people of something like this any more? I'm still waiting for your suggestion regarding alternative means of dispute resolution. I find your underhandedness to be offensive. Guettarda 14:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's at RFAr now. Kim Bruning 18:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately my right honorable opponents have chosen to create a wide and general rambeling case. Good to know that you think of us as your enemies. Here I was thinking that we were all on the same side. Stupid me. But then, makes sense, if you're having fun [16]. Ha ha. Very funny. Gotta chalk this one up as one of my bigger mistakes when it comes to reading people. I'm really disappointed. Guettarda 23:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, Guettarda and Feloniousmonk: I know for myself that I'm doing everything I can think of to act in good faith, even if both of you think I am not. If there's anything I could do better to improve, I would gladly hear it.
At the same time, it occurs to me that if you're having trouble judging my level of good faith, and having trouble working constructively with me (as you are reporting here), perhaps you're also misjudging others, or perhaps reacting to them in ways that could be done in a (more) constructive fashion? Please think about that.
If your first instinct is to read the above as a bad faith attack. Stop and think some more. If you read the above, think for yourself, and conclude that hmm, kim may or may not have a point somewhere, but happens to be wrong in this case... well that's always plausible, let's talk about it.
Kim Bruning 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, well done in bringing that injunction to ArbCom. I can't believe that I read two admins did that! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a comment about Mathbot's leaving statistics on RfA's at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Mathbot. As I believe this concerns or would be of interest to you, I'm inviting you to participate in discussion. Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a new one:
I've saved them for future reference at User:MarkSweep/RFA questions. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kim: I hadn't seen that one before. Thanks! It kinda the way I normally like to operate, but...
This one is a high emotion page. (bet you couldn't guess) When I've tried to isolate an issue to take up, taking it to the talk page, a half dozen others come up. What we've tried here is to hash out a paragraph almost everyone can agree on. A handful of issues remained with it. Since I want to be sure all sides were taken into account, the text was fully documented and most of the arguments made, I set it up to vote on the remaining issues one by one. I warned everyone that I would post it a day later and let them talk it out in the mean time. I then went to post it, even with two or so loose ends out there.
I put down a marker. I will simply revert any undiscussed, non-consensus changes, two times a day if needed. Others have said the same, informally garenteeing that all changes will be discussed first.
So far it seems like it just might work. Wish us luck or pray for us if that's your style... 8-) --CTSWyneken 21:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I promise you, I'm not spamming for votes...only yours, Kim.
There's a debate going on at deletion requests about the Olympic Flag and I most definitely value your opinion on the matter. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 15:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It still says "now I'm REALLY taking a break" on the top of this page. :-P — Kimchi.sg | Talk 18:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. --Steve Summit (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The feeling is mutual! —Kirill Lokshin 19:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:CryptoDerk/CDVF#what_would_be_really_cool
Henna 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dmcdevit·t 06:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to
As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just readded three proposed remedies to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, which had been removed. I have also refactored these comments to
As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, InkSplotch(talk) 14:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kim,
Thanks you for your comments regarding my RfA. I must be honest - I only partially understood what you were talking about!
It is particularly frustrating to know that I was one hour away from outright adminship, but now appear doomed to fail. But anyway, it has been an interesting experience and taught me a valuable lesson - the clearer your mind is about what you believe, the more hostility you will receive. On this basis, I am giving up on self-nominated adminship indefinitely. It seems pointless wasting precious hours listening to people squabble of userboxes or over the use of the word "stupid" when the real purpose here is create an encyclopedia.
Sorry for the length of this response, and all the best! DJR (Talk) 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beste allemaal Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.
Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, coaches. As you can see, there is a significant backlog at the Esperanza Admin Coaching program. Since we do not want users to have to wait forever to get assigned, I'm asking all of you for a status report. If you feel that you are done, that your coachee is not active enough, or that you could handle the extra load from another coachee, please tell me in my talk page as soon as possible. Thanks! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultramarine has been commenting out large portions of a talk page. Is this vandalism?
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Personal_attack_and_original_research_accusations_against_living_prominent_professor_and_researcher for details. Sorry to mention this mud-wrestling again, but I do want advice. Septentrionalis 20:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting my successful request for adminship. I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsible use. If I do anything wrong you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 07:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia really is rather awful. I just hope I made one small part of it slightly better today. [Irrelevantly:] All the best with your dissertation. -- Hoary 11:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me about a bot barnstar a while back (for someone confused with a bot), and I found this Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/Bot_Barnstar that might be useful. I'm still working on a design, but I thought you might find one of those useful. Essjay Talk • Contact 06:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your vote on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_assent. Hopefully, this effort makes a step towards validation of pages. — Dzonatas 23:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kim: I've recently started Wikipedia:Advocate Cabal, which I think you might find of some interest. Feedback, flames, &c. are greatly welcome. Incidentally, you'll notice I'm back on Wikipedia; my miserable state of mind has abated to a certain degree, although I'm not sure whether to return as coordinator of the medcab as I may otherwise let you down again when the bubble bursts, as it will inevitably do. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a hoot. Thanks for starting this article. --Beth Wellington 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (Not an admin, just a humble scribe.)[reply]
Three suggestions about what you raised on the policy pump. Feel free to use some, all or none of this; I do welcome your feedback, in any case.
Being a relatively new _contributor_, I don't know that much about policy issues at Wikipedia, since I'm seeing the policies as a cohesive whole. This is also why I don't intend to get directly involved at this stage. However, as someone who has dealt with similar issues elsewhere - and although I am by no means an expert - I can sympathise, and do want to offer what advice and (perhaps later) assistance may be warranted. — digitaleon • talk @ 14:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Now updated with the missing third suggestion. Oops! — digitaleon • talk @ 15:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Kim, I'm not sure what you're confused about, but I'm guessing I must not have explained something well. Rainbowpainter is not a meatpuppet of mine, just my spouse. If you think I didn't clarify something well enough, I'd be interested in your opinion. Jim62sch 15:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Karmafirst welcomed about 50 new accounts this morning with his welcome message with the links to his manifesto and wikiphilosophies pages. I've opened up an RfA on the issue (Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#Karmafist). I know you've talked to him before about the manifesto. If you have anything to add, please do. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your e-mail! E-mail works. Am here, too, now, though still in stealth mode and not checking often enough. I might be near you in late May. Aren't you supposed to be working on your thesis instead of corresponding anyway? j 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you tried to modify WP:RM - you're not the only one who has tried to get that page more in line with the main policy :). I went through a lot a while ago just to get 60% to "generally", so don't be too disappointed. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 12:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I (finally) found those virtual roses that I believe might have come from your virtual garden. Thank you for sharing them! They brightened my day. They're just as fresh as when you first picked them. The fragrance is a little faint, but they're absolutely gorgeous to look at. 17:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Or did I read this wrong? :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i dont really care, but is it really good etiquette to call people idiots in the edit summaries? im the one you'd be referring to. (this is in reference to WP:IAR). thanks. SECProto 23:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.
The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.
I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [17] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 07:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For when you get back from your break (if you are on one). It seems like there hasn't been much discussion recently at WP:DFA. Any way to start it back up? I think we have good ideas, but we need to completely rewrite everything. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kim,
The user in question, as the link you provided shows, had written to ObsidianOrder:
"In the end, I am not an Islamist. I AM DEMANDING AN APOLOGY AND RETRACTION. I'm hoping you can civil about this so I don't have to escalate this issue."
I'd never encountered ObsidianOrder, nor seen him/her since, but the way this user was conducting himself, threatening other editors while screaming in caps and boldface, was unacceptable to me. I grant you that my sarcasm was unnecessary, but asking him to be specific about what he was threatening was fair and appropriate, and doesn't constitute a personal attack.Timothy Usher 01:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support in regard to my issue on the mediation page. I have since seen many of my edits being removed and/or deleted and sometimes replaced by irrelevant information. I do hope that I get some assistance in regard to my issue. I had a good impression of Wikipedia and its followers in the beginning.
Thanks again…. By the way aren’t there any “supervisors” to this thing…. LOL Rawhide4u 17:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to collect what I had about it but it lacks a lot [18]. Perhaps I should write it as code. Some day I'll go through it and clean it up. I have some ideas about how parts of it could be implemented (what I did in an automatic classification engine) but nothing of these ideas are described, so the page shouldn't be completly unreadable. /me goes back to the norwegian trolls — John Erling Blad (no) 05:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in the following section: Template talk:Move#Vote or not to vote that is the question. Regards Philip Baird Shearer 11:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<blush> of course... You makes some of the most outrageous statements in my RfA! Thank you for the support, it is much appreciated. - Amgine 20:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to:
--Francis Schonken 08:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to your comments on my usertalk: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. I needn't remind you of something you should already know: course language is an attack, making demands is an attack, etc. There's a better way to express what you need to, and attacking isn't it. I have enough problems without adding you to the list. Please consider expressing your opinion some other way. — Nathan (Got something to say? Say it.) 10:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned about your recent edits at the new contributors' help page, particularly the dialogue with User:Deborahjay. I trust that you answered her in good faith (noting the smileys), but I believe you probably should have pointed her to Wikipedia:Userboxes, which is obviously the page she was looking for. I certainly don't want to offend you or to stir up controversy, but I just thought I should let you know my concerns, in the spirit of openness. I respect your opinion about the userboxes and the nature of user space, but I think we shouldn't let our personal opinions get in the way of helping newcomers. It would be great to see you continue to help answer questions at the newcomers' help page in the future, since you are such an experienced user and you seem to have a deep understanding of wikiprocess. --TantalumTelluride♪ 03:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of "Adminship renewel" was probably correct, but unfortunate. We're entering into that area where so much fruitless talk has occured that it's going to be impossible to actually change anything if we start to say "we've talked about this enough."
There is clearly room for some small improvement in the dead-minn process. My straightforward version would be to indentify those "consistantly disruptive but just shy of arb-able" admins and nuke them from orbit. But Jimbo won't hand me the keys to the nuclear football, dammit!
So some space to talk about it is probably a good idea. I've opened an RfC on myself with the hopes that I'd get some really juicy complaints and start the ball rolling about some form of adminship reform, but so far not one cry for my head!
brenneman{L} 09:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do i do this
thx! -- added by User:Joshuarooney
I think the problem with fixing some of the problems is twofold: first, that those who feel they are benefiting from the problems do not want change; two, the project is weighted down with inertia. Too many editors are convinced nothing is wrong and rather than learn from criticism, shout it down.
Could I help fix it? Yes, I could. I daresay I could completely rewrite the policy basis of the site and fix many of the problems I outlined. But I'd be unlikely to gain support. Most of the establishment thinks I'm a shitstirrer (and incredibly they seem to think that's a bad thing). But I think they'd actually like the outcome. It's simply that a wiki for ten thousand people has to be different from one for forty and a lot of the shit here grows out of that: people feel embattled because policies were made for a small community that all knew each other and had a degree of trust and they don't really fit a bigger website.
I'll give you an example of what I mean. Take the policy on NPOV. As envisaged, it was a great idea. And everybody could probably go along with it because if they had problems, they could talk it out. With few people involved, there was probably a common understanding. But now there are too many people, each with their own view of what it means. So they fight over it. And we have a court for behaviour but no means of deciding on which policy applies how. Worst of all, when we have content disputes, the bigger gang wins. This is a terrible means of deciding conflicts. If it were true that we did not have cliques and the most persuasive argument would gain the most support, it would not be so bad, but when a POV wins out simply because the person who holds it is more popular or better connected, that is not good.
Another example is that in the smaller community, users can be asked to trust one another's judgement. But in the bigger one, you don't necessarily know the other users, so you have to "assume good faith". (Which is all very well, but we are all too aware that people don't always show good faith.) So admins do what they think is right, others challenge them, and they are admonished to AGF and the matter ends in bitterness. Much better to not entrench the power structure, to allow adminship to be "no big deal" by simply rotating it and not allow editors' points of view to be privileged (which admin viewpoints have become), and to demand a closer adherence to a policy base that is clear.
If you want to talk about some of the things I mentioned, or anything else you think is worth discussing, feel free to drop me a talk message or email me at freddyvessant AT gmail DOT com. Grace Note 00:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about banning persistent vanndals from even accessing wikipedia?
it would make it a lot better for others...
Joshuarooney 08:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
how do i make a page availible to find by searching for it, i created one for my school, and i put it in the article 'meat anolouge' thx... --anon
i meant when you search on wikipedia, but i will try the google idea too :)
someone has vandalised my homepage how do i issue a warning?
thanks Joshuarooney 13:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your constructive comment. Things were a tad chaotic, so I didn't notice and respond to your post until recently [20]. -ZeroTalk 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, well, the statement at my user page is not really true anymore. There is a brand new Natural Selection page in development here: User:KimvdLinde/Natural_selection, and if you like to contribute, be welcome. Kim van der Linde at venus 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admins qua admins should only apply policies is what I meant. The overlay should not be "use your judgement" but "apply the policy". I know this probably doesn't appeal to you because you're a fan of the looser wiki idea (as am I) but I think that that is what doesn't scale. -- Grace Note.
They vandalised me again, they put: 'i take it up the bum' and cpoy and pasted it a thousand times, it may be one of my mates being funny, but it is pretty embarracing, btw thanks for all the support you have been giving me.
i will be back at about 4:00pm.
--Joshuarooney 11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, you need to be clear that on my user page I'm mostly discussing the politics, which affect very little of the website, but do have an impact on the culture and how Wikipedia views itself and is viewed. The broader issues of content control are something else entirely. I agree that most pages are little visited (which is a bad thing! Lack of systematic treatment of the encyclopaedia is a bad thing on the whole -- but many of the same people who resist cultural change also resist systemising the work. Personally, I have mixed feelings. I like a vast, sprawling chaos, but I also like a tremendously functional work: the tension between the two is a source of dynamism and wonder) and that conflict tends to be centred in certain places.
As far as "acculturation" is concerned, Kim, you need to bear in mind that it is as much a question of "old culture" meets "new culture". The old culture fiercely resists the changes that the new brings because it believes it made a lot of progress using the old methods. It fears that a change in culture would bring a derecognition of that progress. The newer culture needs to recognise the fears of the older. But at the same time, I think the older culture needs to grasp that things have changed, that there are very many new editors, with different views of what Wikipedia is for. How long can the old culture keep yelling "this is what Wikipedia is because this is what we made" when it is a/ outnumbered (and consequently no longer represents a consensus) and b/ having to resort to autocratic means to impose its ideas. If its ideas were strong enough, it could convince others of them. My idea is that it should accept that things have changed and strongly codify its culture. Grace Note 23:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kim, I didn't understand your note about a vote of no confidence on something. Re: the policy/guideline patrol, it isn't vandalism that's the problem but, for example, newish editors who try to add their own opinions to articles, are stopped by other editors invoking one of the content policies, and who therefore go to those policies to try to change them so that they can make the edits they want. Or, as we saw with Zephram Stark, sockpuppets changing the sockpuppet policy to make it slightly harder for them to be blocked. It's not just the changing of one policy that's the problem, but because the new editors have no knowledge of policy overall, they introduce inconsistencies between different policies. You wrote on my page that often it's the "new and enthusiastic people who come up with the great new ideas on how to fix things." I've never seen this myself. Can you think of an example from one of the policy pages, or indeed, from anywhere else? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about merging by map type? - RoyBoy 800 05:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kim, don't know much about it, but almost certainly to do with the IZAK thing. I'm in the process of writing it up for AN/I on another tab. Give me 10 minutes. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I could be of some assistance with this - please let me know your thoughts on this. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the discussion at WP:ANI#Nomination_by_PZFUN.2C_and_Speedy_keep_of_several_articles_by_Slimvirgin?User:Zoe|(talk) 20:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]