User talk:Gigs/Archive 5
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To contact me, write here. I will reply on this page.
|
|
The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009 edit
- Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Thanks for the award edit
I'm shocked to be given this award, it is a pleasure to help ! I would like to thank all my family, my wife for making me the man I am, haha only kidding ! Ryangiggs69 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Use of a comment edit
Hi Gigs,
I'm writing a white paper on human rights in virtual worlds, which contains a section about online reputations. I hope you don't mind, but I intend to use your quote on Polargeo's RFA as an example in which a pseudonymous identity's reputation can have independent value. The footnote for the quote will contain a link back to the diff linked above. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop a note on my user talk, or send me an email through my user page. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- May we receive a copy of that white paper, when it is done, please? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC edit
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 01:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009 edit
- Election report: ArbCom election result announced
- News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more
- In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
Exception for doppleganger style redirects edit
I accidentally rollbacked your recent edit to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Although I was trying to revert your edit (and I've explained on the talk page), I did not intend to use rollback... –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you the main guy behind this? edit
Is this your baby?
I almost don't care about WP anymore, beyond fixing it. I feel -- as do many -- that if it can't be fixed, it isn't worth my time. I remember how the attitude was once that WP desperately needed admins due to a chronic shortage.
Now, I think it needs an easier way to desysop.
I'm seeing rogue admin cowboys flaunt the rules without fear, swagger, threaten, man AN/I while ignoring the initial issues raised, people that don't even know the rules, Sally Social Climbers that wanted the power but couldn't be bothered to read the rules, and admins insisting on attack coatracks of living persons hated by mobs, and violating WP:BATTLE.
This creates a 2-tier hierchy in WP. Admins should be held to a higher standard of behavior.
That's not happening now.
We should have more admins, sure. -- Rico 08:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you mean CDA, no, I don't think you could describe that as "my baby". I took an interest in it and have attempted to facilitate the proposal, but I have strong doubts about the viability of the "big up front" method of process design when applied to Wikipedia. I do support some form of standardized community de-sysop, mainly because it really should be "no big deal" Gigs (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
fallingrain.com edit
Incidentally Fallingrain is currently proposed for black listing at the bottom of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist...I couldn't agree more. Gigs, nearly every falling rain page has incorrect population data (which has been used as a population reference) and the altitude has regularly shown itself to be incorrect compared to google earth. One major one was a coatal village on the western coast of Madagascar which is barely above sealevel yet fallingrain claimed it was 360 metres. It doesn't stop there. The names and spelling ad widely known to often be transliterated incorrectly and the data is 15 years out of date and oftne lists villages/railways etc which no longer exist. The only correct data generally is the coordinates and nearby settlements but even those listed are often settlements which no longer exist or are minimal. Basically linking to that site can be misleading.... Have a good Christmas anyway! Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. I do think that we need a way to deal with such inaccurate sites, but I don't think the blacklist is the answer. I have left a comment on the de-whitelist request regarding it. Gigs (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009 edit
- News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
DYK for Head Games (game show) edit
|
On December 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Head Games (game show), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010 edit
- News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more
- In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Original Barnstar edit
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| To Gigs, In recognition for your many tireless contributions in the Wikipedia:Namespace. Your hard work and due diligence is appreciated. Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
- While we may not see eye to eye on every issue, I've followed you contributions and believe this barnstar is well deserved for all the hard work you put into making Wikipedia a better project. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Did you see this? edit
[[1]] was the reason for the MFD. He has since re-written and the way it is now I have no problems. But I did want to point out why we were there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- No I didn't realize the changes were that heavy. It was bordering on an attack page back then. Hard for me to say how I would have voted looking at that version, but the one that's there now is acceptable. Gigs (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree it's good to go now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010 edit
- From the editor: Call for writers
- 2009 in review: 2009 in Review
- Books: New Book namespace created
- News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
Overdue response edit
Re this - yes, please do. Raul654 (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Gigs. You have !voted twice in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Panyd (Support #16 and Oppose #5). Can you indent one of them? Thanks. smithers - talk 00:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you are talking about. I have only opposed. Gigs (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Anne Murray edit
I think the images the user has uploaded are also copyvios. For example, see my note at File talk:AnneMurrayWhiteJacket.JPG. --RrburkeekrubrR 21:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, many of them do seem to be. I wavered between the editing warring noticeboard and a more general one because of the cross cutting issues here. It is going to be a real hassle cleaning up this mess. I hope the short block that will probably result from the edit warring notice will give them enough pause to take our policies seriously. Gigs (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal edit
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
- gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
- ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010 edit
- News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more
- In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more
- WikiProject report: Where are they now?
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Whoa edit
Now, I never ever once suggested that any !votes be removed. I suggested that the line of questioning in the "questions to the candidate" might perhaps be out of line IMHO because it was not dealing with their actual editing pattern, but merely some "potential". I'm also wondering how I can clarify the issue with WGB better? WP:ANI, his talkpage and that page both clearly show how the interactions got going from a neutral, third party attempt to sincerely help. What do you find is missing? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh! I misread your post then and then again just today when I found it. I will update my comments. About the WGB thing... it just seems like it was a foregone conclusion there, rather than an attempt at actual reconciliation. Again I'm sorry for misinterperting your comments on Paynd's RfA. I am kind of in a hurry right now, I will consider this more when I have time. Gigs (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. It you look at WGB's talkpage, my talkpage, and that attempted mediation page, the whole thing will be clearer - hell, someone gave be a Barnstar for that very attempt at helping. I was surprised by your neutral - even moreso by the move to oppose! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Now that I have a few minutes I can expand on my rationale regarding WGB. I think the main thing that's leaving a bad taste in my mouth is that it almost seemed like a kind of kangaroo court. You had to have known from the beginning that WGB's complaints had little merit. So why drag him through a lengthy point by point rebuttal, under the guise of being his "angel"? There could have only been one conclusion to that process, that his complaints weren't going to get him anywhere. Why bait him with false hope only to hit him with massive walls of text about why his complaints were without merit?
- Thanks. It you look at WGB's talkpage, my talkpage, and that attempted mediation page, the whole thing will be clearer - hell, someone gave be a Barnstar for that very attempt at helping. I was surprised by your neutral - even moreso by the move to oppose! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Secondly, it really rubs me the wrong way that this is being held up as a shining example of good dispute resolution. I see it more as a systematic alienation of an already pissed off and somewhat disruptive editor, who, in his own head at least, was acting in good faith. I doubt further alienation was your intent, and I'll AGF that it wasn't, but it was the outcome anyway. I don't think this technique should be emulated, encouraged, or admired. Gigs (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, there was no foregone conclusion, but the guy deserved the opportunity to put his thoughts down clearly, and see whether or not he had a "case" - even a lawyer who knows that his client is guilty as hell will try and find some small victories - I truly tried to find some "victory" for him, if nothing else than by actually being listened to. Too often our complainers are never heard, and the more they try, the closer to a block they get. Right or wrong, he needed to have someone listen to him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Secondly, it really rubs me the wrong way that this is being held up as a shining example of good dispute resolution. I see it more as a systematic alienation of an already pissed off and somewhat disruptive editor, who, in his own head at least, was acting in good faith. I doubt further alienation was your intent, and I'll AGF that it wasn't, but it was the outcome anyway. I don't think this technique should be emulated, encouraged, or admired. Gigs (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Doppleganger edit
Hi Gigs. I am very worried that you consider me to be your wiki-Doppelgänger (You must be from a properly civilised country using the umlaut). I am more than a little worried for you. Never mind I didn't want to appear bitey to you on the RfA I am just trying to make sure the various candidates get the benefit of the doubt. However, I could easily be tipped over to oppose on SMcCandlish if for nothing else than his ridiculously large signature :) Polargeo (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Heh worried why? Mostly we seem to have similar writing styles and editing history. Gigs (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
| ||||
Content
I responded. Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator#BLP_discussions I hope you are serious about this. It will be a lot of hard repetitive work, with a lot of editors attempting to block your efforts, but it will be worth it.
In the merge project last summer I got about 4 barnstars and praise from so many editors, from all spectrums. The most fulfilling aspect though, was we stopped, completely stopped the anger and frustrations of the AFDs which had been on ANI countless times. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 02:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur edit
Whether you did it backwards or not depends on what you are trying to do. What are you trying to do?—Kww(talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The history we need to preserve is on the Wikiproject version, I wanted to get it put back under the redirect to preserve merged material attribution for material that's been merged into the redirect's target. Gigs (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- But why did you restore such a faulty article to article space? It was moved to project space by consensus, and there has been no noticeable improvement.—Kww(talk) 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)