User talk:Gray62/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Gray62/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Molotov (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

David Lat

Dude, on David Lat - AWESOME! You came in and did a kick-ass improvement job. You're my new favorite WP editor! THANK YOU. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I was just bored, so I thought I could do some work on it. And pls don't flatter me, I'm not very experienced at wiki yet. Thank YOU for helping out with the wordings and completing the article! :) Gray62 13:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You see, most frequent flyers here are involved either in one-off sniping, or some kind of housekeeping: vandal-fighting, stub-sorting, categorization, deletions of junk, etc. Random people from outside come in and puke lots of information into a dilapidated article, and then slowly, one snipe at a time, people fix it up. It's rare that someone w/o ADD can thoughtfully redo an article, do research, cite normally, all while thinking outside the box. That makes you rare. Stay in touch. I hope you do lots more good work on WP. Did you have prior exposure to Lat and UTR? Are you an attorney? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

1. we only put in a hyperlink the first time a term appears, e.g. Wonkette. Same the links.
2. we don't hyperlink years unless they're birth and death in the header. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to show you what I mean, this is what it looked like when I picked it up and started taking care of it. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"even though Ianal?" What's your native language? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support (and welcome back!)

Hello Gray62,

Thank you very much for taking the time to support my RfA; I consider myself fortunate to be one of the first places you edited at, after returning from your extended leave of absence.

As I noted at the RfA you can find me hanging around WP:EAR, offering assistance to editors. However, if you need any help with actions requiring administrative access, please feel free to contact me; I shall do my best to be of assistance to you.

Thanks again, and I hope to see you around. Cheers, --Aarktica 00:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you a troll?

All you seem to do is oppose RfAs for the lamest reasons. 86.29.44.23 00:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the diffs, I also supported some. It's not my fault if candidates obviously aren't fit for adminship yet. Gray62 01:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm extremely seriously concerned that Wikipedia could be "damaged by a sense of humour"! :P Gray62 01:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Go and edit the encyclopedia, instead of arsing around like a moron trying to draw attention to yourself. 86.29.44.23 01:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least I didn't nominate myself for admin, right? And now log in or be gone, troll! Gray62 01:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, editors who nominate themselves early don't bother me nearly so much as users like yourself who are doing it for lulz and drama. Encyclopedia is that-a-way. 86.29.44.23 01:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You're really funny! A humorless IP trying to teach me! Gray62 01:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So I'm both really funny, and humorless? LOL 86.29.44.23 01:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Oh, and I can be quite humorless, too, sometimes. Maybe I will show you in Birmingham, on October 20, 1300... Gray62 01:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooh you scare me (not) 86.29.44.23 01:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think I said this to scare you you're making a majorly error... Gray62 02:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, creep. 86.29.44.23 02:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What's really creepy is a user hiding behind an IP, whose only fun in Wikipedia seems to be to do reverts. Pervert. Gray62 03:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What's really creepy is a user hiding behind a sockpuppet account, whose only fun in Wikipedia seems to be to do opposes in RFAs. Retard. 86.29.44.23 10:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You're noit only a whimp, you also obviously aren't able to engage in civil discussions, and you're incredible lazy with the facts. Last warning: Stay off my userpage now or I'll get admin help and we'll check who you really are. I'm serious. Gray62 10:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do that. (FYI I have never touched your userpage). 86.29.44.23 11:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's the talkpage here, right. However, be missing. Gray62 11:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Marlith ^T/C has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Oh no! That's what I get for trying to be funny! :D

No problem

Mate, it's seriously, no problem. Quite a funny discussion and a lame excuse to put some pictures of some uses were spun off from it. And you did raise good point. Cheers for your support, in the end, it was all worked out. Take care, Dfrg.msc 22:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed. I will attempt to get more experience and will try again for RfA in two month's time. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. As a side note, I do have interaction with other Wikipedians, though I just happen to like to communicate over IRC rather than posting a message to a talk page. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 07:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page! Thanks!Carter | Talk to me 12:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA - not so important???

Hi Kizor, I'm a bit concerned about your lack of attention to your RfA process. Pls take into consideration that people invest a considerable amount of time for giving candidates a vote. In this regard, I think it's a bit undiplomatic that you took the time to participate in an other discussion today, but haven't answered the questions at RfA yet. Just a reminder... Gray62 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not today, yesterday after midnight. I actually responded to your concern about this on the RFA itself, but got an edit conflict with your note about a lack of response, and a new message about this. *embarassed grin* Story of my life. Anyway, I do appreciate the time and effort that goes into a RFA, but this only started the day before yesterday and yesterday I focused my appreciation to a course I'm taking at university that's on my favorite, obscure, hope-to-turn-into-a-career subject and also years above my level and known for its workload. Briefly busy IRL is what I'm trying to say. I could have addressed the questions in the wee hours of the night, but that just answers itself, doesn't it?

I didn't think this delay would be a severe issue, but it's clear enough from the neutral comments that it was. Apologies. --Kizor 13:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on my RFA

Thank you for commenting on my RFA, which was withdrawn. Whether you supported or opposed, I thank you for the suggestions for improvement. And please forgive me if my wording was a bit harsh, by oppose I meant opposing Wikipedia. Marlith ^T/C 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But I did not write the answers to be funny. I was actually saying what I wanted Wikipedia to be and they were more expressive than humoruous. Thanks. Marlith ^T/C 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Resp

Yeah, cheers man. I was really just trying to nominate a good editor, I'm sure it will all work out though. Thanks for WP:AGFing. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 06:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Dear Gray62, ______ __ __ __ /\__ _\/\ \ /\ \ /\ \ \/_/\ \/\ \ \___ __ ___\ \ \/'\ __ __ ___ __ __\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ `\ /'__`\ /' _ `\ \ , < /\ \/\ \ / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\ \ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\ \/_/ \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/ \/___/ \/_/ /\___/ \/__/ For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes. The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 09:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. Hopefully next time I will have enough experience (and conflict solving ability) to gain your support! As to your other point, I would disagree that I was "grandstanding" with admin tools - as beyond perhaps a warning template, I don't believe I've ever actually implied I have had admin tools (i.e. to my recollection I do not believe I've ever suggested I could protect a page or block a user), however perhaps if you had an example you wanted to discuss, I'd be happy to continue the convo on my (or your or both) talk page. Again, though, thanks for the vote and I look forward to seeing you around WP!--danielfolsom 21:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thanks, Archive 1! Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was a success, and I look forward to getting started! Hiberniantears 17:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Thank you! Thank you for your help in my RfA. It hammered home a few things I need to keep in mind while admining and passed with a final tally of 40/0/4; two people forgot to vote in time, leaving me short of that exquisite number. Support, oppose or neutral, you were well justified in making noise, and the RfA was all the better for it. If you later on have something to say or want to ask for -- MESSAGE EATEN BY BEARS --Kizor 15:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Newbie users

Hi, thanks for your support. It was annoyed newbie users I'd helped I couldn't remember much about. Here's a simply confused newbie I helped [1] [2] (I hope it's ok my posting this here). Doug Weller (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cirt

If there is evidence of socking in the support section, please point it out to me, otherwise, it would be nice if you moderated your assumptions of bad faith against me.[3] If there are support socks (support hose?), I will be happy to file RFCU against them. Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, now, now, pls relax and read my comment with a neutral eye again. Nowhere do I accuse you of acting in bad faith (but what about your accusation here?). Sure you are acting in good faith, but you can be wrong nethertheless. I think in this instance you are wrong. And I really don't know what to make of this strategy to checkuser only the "oppose" voters. Try to show a more neutral chance and check ALL voters if you think there is abuse, dammit! Sry, but I can't tolerate this onesided discrimination that looks like pressuring editors to vote yes. Gray62 (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You might find this of interest - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thx, I already noticed this. Imho RfAs should be regularly checked for sockpuppets, and not only the "oppose" votes. And, after the poetlister desaster, I'm for running a checkuser on any candidate, too. This kind fo kabuki theatre shouldn't be allowed to happen here. Gray62 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to complain about an admin's action there is no real "complaint desk". However you can ask for input from other admins by posting at WP:AN. They won't want to hear a complaint IMO but if you word it neutrally they should offer input as to whether the community agrees with his action. For a real complaint with teeth you would have to file an arbitration case and I doubt they would take it up but who knows. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the info! I don't really want to make a big stink, and I guess it would be a waste of time, but I'm still considereing this. Depends on Jehochman's reaction after the checkuser will confirm that there's nothing wrong with my account. Gray62 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to realize that admins have already gained the trust of the community and are cut a lot of slack. If you post nicely at WP:AN the best you can hope for is some other admins telling JH to chill. Or they could agree with him. But at least you get a wider forum with more neutral input for your issue. JH has already shown himself to be a supporter and defender of Cirt (and a long-time friend of Durova) so I would not consider him neutral. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's official! I'm not a sockpuppet.

"Unrelated to anyone else, and no evidence to suggest sockpuppetry." Looky here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway However, a bitter taste remains after this ridiculous accusation. This is exactly the kind of abusive adminship that makes me participate in RfAs. Some editors shouldn't get the mop, or shit like this will happen. Gray62 (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Anybody can file a request for checkuser. This is not an administrative function. It appears that you have come back from a long wikibreak and innocently acted in a way that created an appearance of possible sock puppetry. Given that there was already lots of confirmed sock puppetry in the venue, a number of editors felt that checking was prudent. At User talk:Rlevse there is a question pending to you. Regards, Jehochman ^Talk 20:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Gray62, trust me I am looking at EVERY voter. You need to show more faith here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, I've shown more good faith than Jehochman or you. But my patience is running short. This crap has already gone way too far. Gray62 (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

On behalf of all of Wikipedia who agrees with me, I am deeply sorry about the poor treatment you received in the RFA. There should always be a polite discussion about why one should get or should not get the keys. Being the object of incivility or hostility isn't nice. I was the object of that about a year ago when someone didn't like my edit about a drug company. It was not good or bad, but just an added neutral fact. This caused me to sharply cut back on editing and it still hasn't gotten back to the pace that was before the false accusation. I hope you will continue to be a good contributor. Spevw (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Gray62. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ALBA

Hi. How are you? Everything is fine? You wrote that I said something about ALBA, but i did not said anything about ALBA. You must have confused me with another person. Could you find where you find that someone said something about ALBA?--Ferreira^talk 19:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops? It was in the edit summary of the Wiki story about the Honduras coup. Let me check that gain, back soon. Gray62 (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sry! Well, you menmtioned in an edit summary that you removed "alba' because it's no valid ref name. Ichecked now, it was wrongly used as a Wikipedia ref name by another editor, but there was no ref by that name. That's what you meant. Sry for confusing this and believing that it was in the text somehwere. My mistake. Gray62 (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by blocked editors

If an editor has been blocked, it is normal procedure to delete any edits he/she makes by evading the block through sockpuppets. If we didn't, there would be more incentive to create sock puppets, especially for those whose main purpose is vandalism of some sort. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thx for the info, Doug! However, does the "normal procedure" apply here?

Imho it would have been reasonable not to apply it in this case, because this noticeboard posting isn'T only about the convicted sockpuppet, but also about others who have been banned. And it's a fact that the deletion of "Waxman"'s comments makes the discussion a bit hard to follow. Also, I wonder about Ryulong implementing the deletions. He has been desysopped recently, and so has an obvious POV in discussions about "admins vs contributors". Imho it would have been better if he had abstained from making this deletions. That's why I asked for someone else to review this. However, thx for giving me the info! Gray62 (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

SUL

Hi Gray62, noticed what you wrote at Jimbos talk. You can edit other wikimedia projects without creating a new account, see Wikipedia:Unified login. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thx for this info, Finn! I appreciate your help, and especially the fast response. Great! Gray62 (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)