User talk:Bluegoblin7/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
« 1 ← Archive 21 Archive 22 39 »

SOAP Merge

I proposed it, Diego BOLDly did it, DJ undid it. Discussion continues. I assume that had I BOLDly done it, I would have been reverted and maybe even warned Purplebackpack89 16:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We brought this up on IRC last night when it was done by DJSasso, you must have not been listening. I still endorse a move of the article and I am heading over to ST now to say that. Indeed, had it been done BOLDly I don't expect there would have been anything happen because of it - DJSasso's reasoning appears to be the lack of discussion - therefore, had the discussion not started there wouldn't have been an issue. However, had there been, we would be where we are now; the move reverted & a discussion started. There's no grounds for blocks or warnings - considering you think of yourself as an established editor and defend yourself against being called a "n00b", you should probably know that. Goblin 16:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
Indeed WP:BRD actually states this is exactly how its supposed to happen. Someone is bold, then someone reverts cause they disagree (for whatever reason), and then discussion takes place. Its a key concept on wikis. No warning would have taken place though. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple News Issue 24

The Simple News
The Simple News
Issue Twenty Four
12th June 2010
Announcements
Administrator News

GoblinBot3 (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Deletion requests

Hello Bluegoblin7!
I just noticed you removed my Quick Deletion requests for the redirects Bloody mary and Harry potter. Since I am absolutely not experienced and used to the habits in this wiki I may have done wrong but could you please explain to me why those redirects are necessary?
Kind regards --Thirafydion (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thirafydion, I declined your QD requests because they are quite plausible typos that a user to this wiki may make, and with the pages being marked as redirects it means that the users will be redirected to the correct page (Bloody Mary and Harry Potter) as opposed to viewing an error page. It also means that if someone incorrectly links the page in an article it will still click through to the correct page. Basically, if the redirects are useful then they will not be QDd. Regards, Goblin 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Hello again!
As far as I can see it, you don't need the redirects to be redirected to the right page. You can type in "Naomi watts" in the search field and be redirected to the right article without that a redirect exists. And if someone links the page incorrectly that also means that it appears incorrectly typed in the article and has to be corrected anyway. Regards, --Thirafydion (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if someone wants to link Naomi watts it's a redlink. If there is such a redirect, the link will be blue. That's why we normally don't delete such redirects. (I know dewiki does otherwise...) -Barras talk 16:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do see that point. But if someone links Naomi watts that has to be corrected anyway because last names are written with capitals. And if the link is red that is in my opinion even helpful because you see the mistake earlier than with a blue link. --Thirafydion (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our target auditorium is most likely younger and most people don't edit here. Poeple may get confused by such a redlink and create the article for a second time. A redirect doesn't mess it up as if people go and duplicate an article. -Barras talk 16:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that might be a problem. But it is a lot of work you have to do when you want to create a redirect for every name. --Thirafydion (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't go through lists and do this for every article. We just leave the existing or the ones that are created due to a move. -Barras talk 16:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfB

Hi BG7! I've closed your request for bureaucratship as unsuccessful. There is no consensus to promote you to a bureaucrat as there are more people against promotion as people who are in favour. May you want to try it again later. However, good luck for the next time! Best, -Barras talk 10:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Barras. In the event anyone is TPS'ing, no idea if I'll run again or not, but let's see what happens. Last time I pay any attention to the people who said they'd support and/or endorse (that being the whole reason for running when I did) though; hardly any of them appeared :P. Goblin 15:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
Ah, don't worry about it, BG. Bureaucratship isn't all it's cracked up to be. You just wait for someone to post a rename request to keep you busy once every few weeks, or try to stay awake until 4 in the morning to catch the odd RfA. It's nothing really! –Juliancolton | Talk 14:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers JC. We shall see what happens! And I stay awake till 4 anyway, so it's no different ;-) Goblin 14:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Curious

Out of curiousity why do you prefer to do it that way? From what I understand MediaWiki:Portal is depricated because MediaWiki:Sidebar can handle it? Which is why it was deleted in 2007? I could very well be wrong, I am just curious why your preference. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to rv if you want, I've just found from running wikis that it causes less problems to use a system message rather than explicitly define it. Also, whilst it's probably not an issue, it does aid localisation as well to define it as a system message - people browsing the wiki with a language other than the default will see their local version of the message instead of being forced to use it (Which is, perhaps, a down-side of having ST defined explicitly... but that needs more changing as it's a custom message rather than system default.) Hope that explains why, but as I said feel free to rv. :-) Goblin 15:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
Oh its no big deal to me. As long as it gets the job done. I was just curious. -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omnomnom

Clementina has given you some fresh, juicy clementines! Now enjoy them!

This was just too fast! <pout>You're too good and too quick at cleaning this place up, you keep on beating me to reverting and blocking!</pout> Anyway, thank you very much for your help here, and I'm really glad to see you around again. :) Sincerely, —Clementina talk 11:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple News

Hi there. Please take me off the list of people who get Simple News, as I am no longer active on here. THanks, Razorflame 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Griffinofwales (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, you can do it yourself at Wikipedia:Simple News/Subscribe/Full or one of the other pages (/Collapsible or /Link) rather than ask me to do it; the bot draws where it puts it from that page; nowhere else. Goblin 10:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CIVIL

I didn't violate CIVIL. I was criticizing ideas, not people. Purplebackpack89 15:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:
  • "...few editors who dig in their heels on one page, one that is not the most hit. We shouldn't decide this on stubborn opinion, why decide this on statistics/naming conventions; those clearly say Abe."
  • "...accusations of POV pushing and trolling..."
  • "...to statisfy several hardcore Lincolnites who used..."
  • "That's a terrible approach. You don't userfy a page that already exists. You just expand the existing page."
All of those are becoming fairly uncivil, rude, border-line PA and quite aggressive. There are more but I have more important things to do. Suggest you take a time-out and re-read what you write before you post it. Certainly in the first one there's no need for the bold italic stuff. Goblin 15:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
The second one is a statement of fact (people accused other people of trolling and POV pushing); the fourth is a criticism of an idea, not a person. I don't take times-out. Besides, you've done the same things from time to time. Purplebackpack89 16:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether it is or not, in context it comes across as you being uncivil and rude. The fourth is still in violation of WP:CIVIL - I suggest you go read it once more. From that page:
  • Using bad words, especially if they are insulting a person's race, sex, group, or religion.
  • Lying about another user.
  • Being rude.
  • Using comments in change summaries to say bad things about another person's changes. (ex:"fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap")
  • Accusing users of something that you are not sure they did.
  • Vandalizing another person's user page.
  • Making fun of users because of their language or spelling
  • Asking for a user to be banned or blocked, even if s/he has done something wrong.
  • "Playing dumb"
I've highlighted the ones that you're not following. I think you should take time-outs, because you are becoming more and more agressive in this conversation - indeed, you're lucky you've not had a warning yet, imo. And yes, I'm not saying that I'm perfect and haven't been uncivil myself in the past - I've never said that throughout this, but it's not about me, it's about your current conduct. I take time-outs when I get annoyed, as do others. You should try it. As I say, consider yourself lucky you've not been warned yet. Goblin 16:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
Also, are you saying that in examples 1 & 3 you are being uncivil, seeing as you've not commented on them? Goblin 16:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]
Perhaps rude, but certainly not lying or playing dumb. I'm an Eagle Scout with a 3.98 GPA, Goblin. If you don't provide some pretty darn good evidence that I have lied, or rescind the assertion that I have lied, I will take you to AN Purplebackpack89
Calm down dude! WP:NPA and the whole topic of this thread...! "Playing dumb" - pretty much bringing up this issue again, you seem to be acting like you don't know what happened last time round, and lying about other users... examples one and three again. Take me to AN if you wish, I couldn't overly care less - I'm not taking back anything I said because I've given you examples as to why you're being uncivil. Seriously, take a break. Goblin 16:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
You are both to refrain from speaking to each other, or about each other (in any form) for 24 hours. After you have each relaxed a bit, we can continue this without the anger and defence. fr33kman 17:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say that. I've been called a liar, I want that rescinded or action taken. No break, no way, no how, no sir Purplebackpack89 17:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Post the exact link(s) where you feel he has called you a liar fr33kman 17:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right above you; where he highlights lying as something I'm not following Purplebackpack89 17:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Desysop and block

There were three bureaucrats ready to desysop you when you wheel warred and reblocked PBP. I asked you not to but, once again, maturity got the better of you. fr33kman 18:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blind. It's not like we've not already had this conversation. As I said there, and as I'll say here, I really couldn't care less. I'm happy to lose both and get that loser fucker blocked and off this wiki, because it's twats like him that give us the bad name. Oh no, now I'm going to lose TP access. :'( Goblin 18:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]

In response to the comments appearing on the dRfA, I couldn't care less. As I helpfully linked on AN, I knew what was going to appear so I don't care. What matters is that knob being blocked. Goblin 18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]

Your block and desysopping

You are indefinately blocked and temporarily desysopped pending a formal desysopping and a ban discussion. fr33kman 18:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "vandal" was never used by me; you were the one who compared me to various vandals on the wiki. "Rogue" was used in the context of IRC only, to prove a point (That +o should only be given to wiki admins). After opping in #cvn-simplewikis to remove rights from myself and GoblinBot I was de-opped and de-righted before I got chance. Yes, I kicked barras_ - that was for teh lulz and to, again, prove a point. Vandal and rogue on wiki was never mentioned. But, alas, as I say, I couldn't really care less. I'm gone. *poof* Goblin 19:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Personally, I'd really like you to have the opportunity to respond to comments on the dRfA. Would you mind if I set up a section of your talk page to be transcluded? EhJJTALK 09:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your deRfA

Hi BG7! I'm the one who has to bring over the bad message. The request for deadminship on you were successful, this means you lost you rights per community consensus. If you wish to re-gain this tools, you must go through another RfA. Best, -Barras (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bluegoblin7/Archive_22&oldid=8886272"