User talk:Drcrazy102/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC for binding administrator recall

Please revert your edit at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall. One issue is that it completely broke the numbering, but more importantly, posting essentially identical comments nine times encourages others to do likewise with the result that the RfC becoome broken. How could nine people respond to your question in nine different places? Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I apologise for the number-breaking that was more just my bad code-editing skills and not knowing what that would do on a large-scale. I have changed each of them into indents to "fix" the number-system.

I will not revert my edit since I am asking the individual editors to individually respond to a possibility that was presented to me by the author, User:BU_Rob13 when I asked for a clarification of how the quorum would work in the sections Question Time and Discussion.

Thank you, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• As I stated there, what you did is bludgeoning, a form of disruptive editing, and yes, sanctionable. If it continues, I will just withdraw my vote and block you myself. You have been told by two people how inappropriate it is, it would be wise to consider those points of view. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that I have really acted that badly in faith, considering that I am still learning about the shit-tonne of policies and guidelines, than bring me up in front of WP:ANI. Don't block me yourself since I will argue personal involvement and bias in my appeal due to your involvement in the discussion.

I asked the questions in good faith, not expecting some editors to respond so negatively to a question of how to improve the proposal based on their concern of small groups of editors starting a recall. If you read the other responses, they say that they wouldn't but it would probably be a step in the right section, or they say that bringing in the bureaucrats and other trusted editors would be the preferred step.

If you still feel that I have acted in such bad-faith as you are accusing me of, then go to WP:ANI and file an official complaint. Have a nice one, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I used the same question to avoid having to waste an hour or two trying to make a personalised question that would essentially be the same anyway. I wasn't trying to WP:Bludgeon but to ask "if 'this change' is made, would you still oppose?" I fail to see how that is bludgeoning, but I will accept that you view it as such. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we are all equal as editors. If you can pepper people 9x with questions, then everyone can, then the RFC is virtually unreadable after a few more do so. It isn't a matter of faith, it is a matter of format and decorum. To be clear, WP:INVOLVED wouldn't be a factor, but I'm not up for debating it. Besides, I would rather persuade you than block you any day. Whatever the outcome, the goal is a clean, easy to read RFC where everyone gets equal chance to voice their opinions....and the closer has the ability to cleanly read and determine the consensus, no matter what that consensus is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Egg cream

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Egg cream. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Supernatural

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Supernatural. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:David Paul Kuhn

I tried moving my comment under your title but some guy reversed by edit saying I was messing up your edit which I thought was a bit silly. So I then just tidied it up a bit, removing those comments about signing, which I guessed you would be fine with. You can move my comment over there if you like, or move it under your title. Whichever you prefer. Scowie (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've moved your comment and put in a comment for it to stay there. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Akshardham (Delhi)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Akshardham (Delhi). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Take a look

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about the transgender actress Saga Becker. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Early 2012 Hong Kong protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Early 2012 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gospel of Mark

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gospel of Mark. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

• Special report: Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia

• News and notes: Flow placed on ice

• Discussion report: WMF's sudden reversal on Wiki Loves Monuments

• Featured content: Brawny

• In the media: Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage

• Traffic report: You didn't miss much

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anglo-Saxons

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anglo-Saxons. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)