User talk:Karmafist/Archive3

Hi Karmafist,

Titoxd mentioned on Wikipedia:Esperanza/Alerts that you are experiencing some stress lately, so I wanted to offer this image in the hope that it might help you to breathe deeply and feel calm.

Best wishes from Mamawrites and your friends at Esperanza!

Thanks for the message, everything's fine, what happened is explained on my Userpage. Private Butcher 18:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, you called me friend. How sweet.

Let me get this over with. You're not my friend, nor have you ever been, nor will you be.
Just for the record, he thanked me profusely a few days later on IRCKarmafist 17:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you even called me that. Don't take your RFA as any gesture of kindness from me. I started the RFA merely because you were qualified, not because I wanted to be nice. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 17:26, 10 October 2005 (CDT)}

Cold. Brrrr. KHM03 12:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Regarding RobyWayne: I have added a comment explaining why my oppose vote remains.
2. Regarding Denelson: My vote has nothing to do with his past, it's about his very recent oppose on Friday's RFA for flawed reasons.
3. Regarding MedCom: I have vetoed your application. Take a look at the page for my reasoning. I think you'll make a great admin and I will not oppose your RfA, but you are not ready to be a mediator. Andre (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you don't understand why that is an offensive thing to say, you certainly confirm my statement about tact.
2. On that diff I posted, you called both Tony Sidaway and Cool_Cat jerks. That's what I was referring to.
3. AGF: I never claimed that RobyWayne's action was malicious, it was just unacceptable for a potential admin. POINT: It's not MAKING a point that's bad, it's disrupting Wikipedia in doing so, and votes are not disruptive. The act of making a point on Wikipedia is not only encouraged, it is also crucial to the encyclopedia's well-being. What do bots have to do with anything? NPOV: NPOV is about articles. Votes by necessity are opinions. Anyway, shall we agree to disagree? I do enjoy debating, but you appear to want to avoid conflict.
4. If you'd like to have a mediation, sure, I guess, but I can't see how it will help. I have no problem with you, I just don't think you should become a mediator. The statement Andre doesn't seem to have a good opinion of most people that I noticed in the IRC logs is both inaccurate and poorly supported. I think you'll make a good admin, but I do not believe you would be a good mediator and I vetoed your application. I'm not going to change my vote because of a mediation, so what would you like to accomplish? Andre (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Old nominations. Scroll to the very bottom. The precedent is that if 1 mediator opposes you, you don't pass. As a supporter of you, I'm sorry about this. Cheers though. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As of real time, and after a little bit of drama, the Yanks have lost. Rejoice! :) Titoxd^(?!?) 03:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man, thanks for wishing me luck on the elections!!! I'm stressing out about them, because I'm taking them as a gauge of how well I would do in a future RFA (I wouldn't self-nominate, but I never know when someone would think I'm good for the job), so I'm really trying to pay attention to how well I'm doing. And besides, being outside the bubble, behind by one vote is pretty exasperating! Titoxd^(?!?) 05:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way,

Titoxd^(?!?) 05:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now behind by two... eh, it's not like I'm losing to bad users or anything. About an RfA: I had been thinking about it, and I was going to wait until I got 500 edits in the main namespace. That shouldn't take too long, I focused on that the last two days and I racked 120 edits. But yeah, I'll tell you when I get the 500 (which will be after I hit the famous 2000-edit mark). Titoxd^(?!?) 17:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, poor Karmafist, you have to wait to go rogue on me! Oh well, thanks for the bear, I appreciate it. I'll add it to my gallery. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 05:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking the time to consider my RFA; and incidentally congrats on yours. (I would vote for you, but in the context it might look like currying favour, and it's not like you need it to succeed.)

1. You disagree with the edits of another user on a hotly contested article, and the edits are not Vandalism. If you don't step in, a non-admin user will and there will be a mess because it's a hotly contested article. What do you do?
   • In a way, I don't really see how this has a bearing on adminship, insofar as those powers should not be used in this situation of a content dispute in which an admin is personally involved. In another way, I do see how it has a bearing (general behaviour), but can only reiterate what I said in answer to Standard Question 3: keep calm, focus on substance, discuss evidence, do more research and request others to do the same to back up their arguments, if necessary bring in others to comment (which usually helps depersonalise situation). Sometimes, a bit of lateral thinking helps, eg my solution to put some material in a footnote at Hugo Chavez (about him calling Saddam "a brother"; see Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive02).
2. How many Barn Stars or other related awards have you given to other users who were deserving of praise, and would you say that your experience with other users has been positive or negative, explaining why.
   • With one significant exception (User:RJII; if you're really interested, see Talk:Statism and Talk:Natural monopoly), experience with others is largely positive. I've occasionally praised good editing in passing, but not seen anything so out of the ordinary as to suggest some kind of award.
     • Incidentally, I just looked again at Talk:Natural monopoly, and it's not really a good example of keeping calm. It was a long time ago and I believe I've got better at dealing with this sort of situation since then. See Talk:coercive monopoly for current example. Rd232 16:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. I believe I asked you to contact me on my talk page to further discuss this in an attempt to try to end any potential conflict. You didn't, so I feel like I have to step above and beyond and come to you. Will people who want to resolve conflicts have to do this as well, or will you be more proactive?
   • See my remark on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/rd232. In general terms, if I see something that requires resolving, I will do something about it, through talk pages or rfc or whatever. Minor things I may let slide as not worth arguing over.
     • For the record, I seem to have lost that remark (closed the window before pressing save I think); never mind. Thanks for your vote - though you omitted to sign the new vote, only the change of the old. Happens to the best of us :) Rd232 16:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Being a wallflower isn't a bad thing either, if it's done productively and in concert with those who don't share your style of editing. If you shy away from the social side of Wikipedia, what will you do if there's an editor who sees things in a different way than you do in an article and does use the social side of Wikipedia, or as some people call it, "The Cabal", to try and reason with you? Will you be open to their suggestions if they are valid and NPOV, or will you feel threatened because you are unused to their style of editing?
   • I think this is covered by what I said before; but again if people are saying things that are valid and NPOV and based on evidence, what more can you ask?

I want to vote for you, but i'm not going to do so until i'm absolutely sure that you're not going to go all robot on me if you're caught in a sticky situation with another user over a grey area. Karmafist 01:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what you mean by "going all robot on me". But again, I do feel that the "separation of powers" is quite important here - this "content dispute" issue doesn't really have any bearing on adminship, except insofar as it relates to an ability to maintain that separation, and generally behave reputably. "Separation of powers" of course also applies to things like deletion - not taking admin-only actions on issues that you as a user are involved in (except when there's a demonstrated strong consensus). Rd232 15:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification of "robot" - I wasn't offended, just perplexed. And I agree about the need for admins to "cross the divide" between focussing on substance (of editing) and process (of how Wikipedia works). I have more interest in the former, but I have on occasion participated in the latter, and if I get adminship I would expect to end up doing more of the latter. Rd232 17:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your Esperanza notice saying that users should tell you of their acts of kindness, and compliment you on being an election worker. Well, I spent a lot of time recently welcoming newcomers, which you can probably confirm on my contributions. Oh, and your a wonderful election worker. Have some coffee! JDH Owens ^{talk | Esperanza} 20:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have appropriately bestowed the proper barnstar to thank you for your unexpected show of support and kindess with regard to my first RfA. I've never given a barnstar before as I wasn't quite sure how, but felt compelled, without question, to do so now. Thank you for your most generous comments and show of Wikibrotherhood. I will admit that making a dumb move on my RfA wasn't necessarily a highlight of my time here ;-), but had I not, I would not have received some of the constructive criticism and guidance that editors with longer tenure here have to offer. I value other's opinions and, contrary to what some may think, I don't believe that an RfA is a popularity campaign and believe the trust that is placed in a promoted individual is earned.

Again, I appreciate your continued guidance and support and hope that you will monitor my progress and offer comments as appropriate. With regards, >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 23:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning the possibility of a future admin nomination. I'll get back to you when I hit 2000 edits... Mamawrites 00:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

Please also add your name to WP:LA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on adminship. Dlyons493 Talk 11:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!!!! Breezed right through :-). >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 19:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Enjoy the mop and bucket. :) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 02:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job! Nice to hear you're a sysop. I'll keep my eye on you! :) - RPharazon 02:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind support. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 02:01, 13 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! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...if I gave you a barnstar or not, so take this one:

Take care, Molotov (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still have full confidence in you, Karmafist. You are a valuable editor, and Wikipedia has benefited greatly from your work. By all means, attempt to help out disputes. You might also head over to the Mediation Cabal- I hear they're always looking for enthusiastic volunteers. Happy editing! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 18:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry about the Karma Police ;-) Thanks for your vote. Karmafist 23:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and congrads. Always glad to vote for a fellow Radiohead fan and, it seems, a very cool and popular one at that. Here's a cool RH link I found recently: Enjoy :> --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Karmafist! Thank you for supporting me in the Advisory Committee Election!

Also, I must express my gratitude for your work assisting the Election Polls. Have this. :P

P.S. Congratulations on becoming an administrator! Acetic'^Acid 20:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote of confidence in the Esperanza elections. I look forward to helping Esperanza and Wikipedia progress. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Karmafist, I just wanted to thank you for your vote of confidence. Even though I didn't make, it's not the end of the world and I really appreciate the trust you have given to me. Thanks again and I wish you all the best... Gryffindor 22:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made it into the admin club. I appreciate your support 100 percent, and I will endeavour hard to keep it at the 100 percent mark.  Denelson83  22:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Karmafist, thanks for your vote in Esperanza's Advisory Committee Elections. While I didn't get enough votes to be part of it, I know that the four who are can do the job much better than I could have. But I don't take your show of trust in me lightly, I really appreciate it, and tell me whenever you think I can be useful for something. On other news, I've been meaning to come here and congratulate you for your RFA, but I never seem to do it for some reason or another. I apologize for being late, but congratulations!!! Titoxd^(?!?) 22:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My warmest thanks for your support in the Esperanza elections. Although I was not elected, you're confidence and support really does mean a lot to me. JDH Owens ^{talk | Esperanza} 10:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on my RfA. It is sincerely appreciated. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Karmafist, I passed the 2000 edit mark today, so I guess it would be ok to nominate me now. However, if you do it, I won't be able to answer the questions or accept the nomination until Monday, so could you wait until then? Titoxd^(?!?) 23:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks!!! :) Titoxd^(?!?) 21:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Am not sure if it was me who spelled it wrong in the first place, the article title was misspelled itself when I afd'd it, but it doesn't matter now. bjelleklang 00:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I closed your AfD here. There's a nice tag you can use for such articles {{db-copyvio}}. See you around the Wiki! --HappyCamper 02:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I can't seem to find it on the CSD page, but I'm pretty sure those are "speedable" now. Comes in very handy when you see articles like that :-) Glad I could help. --HappyCamper 02:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I'll get back to you on that one. But I know for a fact that the symbol for zero in the Mayan civilization was a picture of an eye. See for example [1]. This is actually very significant, both as a cultural legacy, and in the history of mathematics. --HappyCamper 02:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just took a look at the page. Nope. No happy face reference. Neither does the site. Here is one for you though - thanks for all your hard work on Wikipedia :-) --HappyCamper 03:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I borrowed your nice userbox table, and modified it to my own evil uses on my user page. Do you mind? If you do, please comment on my userpage. Thanks! - RPharazon 03:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, the comment isn't ominous. And by the "Indipendent Mediator" Phrase, I thought it was the official phrase, since it sounded so... Official-sounding. - RPharazon 03:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect or merge this article; the anonymous contributor is reverting every change made to it including some of his own. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 00:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you User:Purplefeltangel/sig 00:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Next time, if you wish to move or rename pages like NFL lore, please follow the directions on Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. Under no circumstances should you move or rename a page by copy/pasting its content. This destroys the edit history. The GFDL requires acknowledgement of the contributors, and by default editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions, so we will need to know who they are at least until the copyright expires. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you are also an admin, I thought you would know this by now :-( Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Whoops, forgot to capitalize "Lore" again when I moved it to National Football League lore as per the Wikipedia:Naming conventions to try to avoid abbreviations. The article now currently resides at National Football League Lore. Now I'll deal with speedy renaming Category:National Football League lore to Category:National Football League Lore... eventually. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the template {{Notvandalism}} for deletion. I don't see anything that template can be used for that can't be better done using HTML comments. --Carnildo 06:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was puzzled why you were calling User:Redwolf24 a "fairly stupid user", until I realised how the name was supposed to be parsed. — JIP | Talk 12:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm an admin on another wiki [2], and I'm trying to block a spambot user, but I'm having trouble. I enter "User:Vasa44" in the block user form, yet it returns the error "Invalid IP Address." Could you let me know if there's something wrong with my syntax? I just can't figure out what the problem is. Thank you! --Gemini6Ice 12:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Enter "Vasa44" without the "User:" part. — JIP | Talk 17:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for trying to deal with the idiotic vandalism being promulgated by User:Joseph Stalin; however, what you didn't realize is that it was just another sockpuppet of the Communism Vandal, someone who's so much of a problem that there's a template for identifying him ("{{Wikipedia_is_Communism}}"). As such, I've extended your block from "one month" to "indefinite". DS 22:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking my vandal. For your efforts, I award you this Psi. Use it in good mental health or to fight off wiki-stress. Thanks again, and see you around. -- Psy guy ^(talk) 23:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to let you know that the way you deal with problems are really admirable. My name is Waterloo 01:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Karmafist, for your advocacy and support of my RfA! I promise to do a good job using the keys to the janitor's closet. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 01:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing up to write for the Signpost! You signed up for "Articles for Deletion and Requests for Adminship". We currently have an opening for the "Features and admins" position. This article focuses on Featured Articles, Lists, and Pictures, and new Administrators. If you'd like to handle this article, feel free. Writing an article on AFD would be okay as well, but make sure and keep it NPOV (I know, it's hard to do on something like AFD). Ral315 W_S 06:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your initiative, I'd prefer not to change the format of the "features and admins" page. I've been trying to have regular columns on the Signpost, rather than having it change every month or two. If you want to take AFD in a separate column, that's fine. It's just that I've really tried to make an attempt at keeping the Signpost relatively stable. Ral315 W_S 05:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the barn. I've been looking for a barn for some time, and this is a lovely barn. One day I hope to convert it into a bar, in which case you're definitely invited (drinks on the house)! :) Rd232 07:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your absurdities there. Thanks! Kurt Weber 22:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC) His absurdities responded to. Karmafist 15:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

You mean taking speedy deletes and copying them there in the case of conflict? That sounds good by me, as I've never much liked the idea of administrators deleting things that didn't qualify for immediate deletion, seeing as there can't really be any checks on the system, except by other administrators. But I'm not entirely convinced if it's worth that sort of effort. I don't really have the time to be reviewing deletion logs and seeing what other people are doing. There's a lot of cases where speedy deletions make complete sense (e.g. people making articles on themselves, testing, writing in a foreign language) and I'm not sure the extent of the problem of speedying articles of perhaps more merit. Sifting through the deletion logs to find potentially valuable articles that have been deleted seems something of an inefficient use of resources. I liked the idea of just allowing users to view deleted articles, but that didn't go over very well, particularly with people nervous about copyright issues. Maybe another direction to take is simply to increase awareness of deletion review.

As for your second point, I really don't think I should be someone to discuss that with. You can vandalize Anarchopedia as you like, but don't expect it to be any more tolerated than it is on Wikipedia. You might be given a lot of power there, but it's in the understanding that you will use it more to improve the wiki rather than to demolish it. If you're just being abusive, I expect you would be banned in much the same way as you would here. This is similar to why Wikipedia allows people to edit through random IPs. Although they are much more prone to vandalism, this vandalism itself is hardly an issue since it is not difficult to revert, and most essentially aim to benefit the project. Anarchopedia takes this a little further, and grants full power to all users. This isn't that radical when you consider that this power is likely to be used generally to the benefit of the wiki, and although some might abuse it, these efforts can be countered fairly easily, particularly when any user can do so. Personally I think Wikipedia goes a little overboard in worrying about vandalism, and I don't even see real problems with people doing it on here, since it gives users an opportunity to relax and enjoy themselves, and will often be reverted fairly soon anyway.

Feel free to pose your idea there, but don't expect it to be taken much better there than it might on Wikipedia. Sarge Baldy 06:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and what is the point of moving Nintendo Gamecube awards to the main page, and not moving others? it seems like you are one of Nintendo fans, and that won't work to build up wikipedia if you are editing stupidness Why i seperated the pages is because, the sub title says Gamespot's award, so i put down GAMESPOTS AWARD, because their are other better websites than gamespot, websites like IGN. If it didn't mention Gamespot then i would have put all consoles and pc awards on the main page. And moving all platforms and pc awards to the main page, will make it look to rough, you have to make it clean so people won't be reading big stuff... ><ino 18:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The decision was unanimously made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo Gamecube G.O.T.Y 2004 to merge the article. As the admin who closed the discussion, it was my duty to do so. Please feel free to Be Bold and make any changes you'd like in order to help formatting.

You can also nominate the page for undeletion. More info on undeletion can be found here. Karmafist 19:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S- I haven't played Nintendo for a few years now.

Yea i did remember it was nominated, when i check/everytime i check it isn't there, so... since their is a decsion, i don't know where to start from.. Actually infact, you can move all the one's i did to the main page>:D ><ino 19:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO forget it i mean, all the stub pages i did, you can move them to the main page/main article because their isn't anypoint of Gamecube on main page and rest on other stubs.

to tell you the truth i get confuse on stubs and sub pages, any way, the stubs are the

• PS2 G.O.T.Y 2004
• Microsoft XBOX G.O.T.Y 2004
• PC G.O.T.Y 2004

i would have done rest but can't be botherd:D

Thanks for your message.

I think this little disagreement has opened my eyes a bit . . . it's not that it's a big deal as much as I realised that I really don't want to be an admin. I hardly fit any of the criteria on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards, I have a poor knowledge of policy, and as you can see, I react badly to criticism. Perhaps in a few more months. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 23:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Karmafist/Archive3/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 23:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No double votes allowed. ;) But really, thanks, man. And who knows, we still have the weekend, maybe more votes and I can beat a record... maybe not Func's, but Essjay's is within the horizon... :)Titoxd^(?!?) 01:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove it? Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Consensus_Regarding_Pile-Ons which lacks concensus. --Durin 13:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevermind. I need to read :) --Durin 13:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a worthy endeavor; in any case, I am no more responsible for your actions than you are for potw's, so I just gave you my opinion. I agree that potw can be difficult. If you want to play 'sheriff' however, my opinion is that you will need to be much more detached, and act as a 'role model'. You should be very clear on your motivations, and cite exactly why you are blocking a user. Don't make vague comments about vandalism and 3RR when you are actually blocking a user for disruption. Don't make idle threats of indefinite blocks. And, most importantly, listen to your peers. If several non-involved admins do not share your outlook, be prepared to step down. regards, dab 18:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC) (unsigned comment by User:130.60.142.65)

I see your point; I also realize the "vandalism" bit came from the template; no harm done, I suppose, although I suggest next time you clash with potw, you let somebody else do the blocking (i.e. if they think a block is appropriate), not to form a pattern. cheers -- dab 21:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC) (comment by User:83.79.189.191)

Actually, seeing your beliefs about AFD are strong, I'd prefer you not cover AFD at all. You may still do an article on Featured articles and admins, as we've done in the past. But your "people to watch" page troubles me. Ral315 W_S 07:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the article can't be done, it's that the article should conform to NPOV, and I think doing an AFD article as such would be hard for you to do (really, hard for anyone...) Sorry about this whole thing. Ral315 W_S 21:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Karmafist:

Thanks for the feedback. I don't want to violate any wikipedia policies so I appreciate the "heads up".

1. I understand about the "new user vote policy" but I couldn't find anything about that on wikipedia. Can you show me where it written? Among other things I'd like to find out how long until I'm not considered a "brand new user".

2. I've been handling things poorly and I will change my tone so as to hopefully not even have "one toe" in. Where my tone has come close to being uncivil has been where I felt I was treated rudely. What I will do, from now on, is to point out to that person where their tone has been uncivil rather than respond in kind.

3. You mention my "subjective advocacy path". My perception is my advocacy is anti "liberal POV" and pro "NPOV". My perception also, the same as many others, is that many politically-oriented articles have a liberal bias/slant to them in wikipedia. I'm trying to help fix that so they are WPA:NPOV. If you have a different perception of my advocacy and/or if you think my advocacy violates policy, please let me know.

4. I understand totally I may appear "conservative" due to my animosity towards liberalism. I really am libertarian though. I am in favor of decriminalizing all acts between consenting adults including gambling, prostitution, all drugs, etc. so I definitely disagree significantly with the conservative viewpoint on personal freedom issues. On the World's Smallest Political Quiz, today, I proudly scored 90% on personal freedom issues and 100% on economic freedom issues.  :-)

5. Coincidentally, I just had an interesting discussion with my brother (An anarcho-capitalist) as to why I campaign more against liberals than conservatives. I explained that:

a. If you filled out the WSPQ for the state of society in the United States today, I think it'd score about 70% for personal freedom issues but only 10% for economic freedom issues. So right there makes me more apt to fight for more economic freedom than personal freedom.

b. Most of the attacks I hear today from the left are not for things that would significantly personal freedom (legalizing drugs, etc.) but are instead are for less economic freedom (more taxes, greater regulation of business and markets, etc.) Where the left does fight on personal freedom issues it's either for legalized abortion (which is debatable depending on whether you think a fetus is a human life or not) or things which are really not going to impact people's quality of life even if successful (removing God from the pledge and pictures of the cross from city symbols, etc.)

c. I perceive criticisms of economic freedom issues by liberals are much more personally-oriented (Bush Crime Family, etc.) than issue-oriented. I don't perceive the same kind of thing from conservatives when they criticize personal freedom issues.

d. I also perceive that liberals (much more than conservatives) want to make certain words, expessions, and even ideas forbidden to talk about; to the extent that if you say a word that is not approved the issue becomes that you said "it" rather than the original issues you were discussing. I find this offensive, and incredibly frustrating especially in light of the fact that it goes counter to the personal freedom true liberalism stands. I don't perceive this occurs when I discuss something with conservatives.

Perhaps it is, as his one statements, like "do unto others as done to you", would suggest. He really is upset, and conidering that Esperanza is about wikilove and restraint from uneeded stress to others, it is disappointing. RfCs are a bit serious though, I think we should try his talk page first. Maybe that can cool things down, at least better than a RfC.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 05:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Wikihug for supporting me so much on my RfA, and for generally being an all-around awesome user. :) User:Purplefeltangel/sig 17:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: this edit -- While I appreciate you backing me up, I'm trying to defuse the situation and your comment isn't really helping. Would you consider removing it? Impressionist is a good contributor who doesn't really know how things work around here. He requires education, not threats. Remember, don't bite the newbies. →Raul654 21:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]