User talk:Caulde/Archive/26

WBOSITG's RfA
 Hello Rudget, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you!  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Rudget; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk  21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal Intros
At Portal:Chicago, User:Cirt and I have been debating about the main imagery. There seems to be a current trend toward having a dynamic set of rotating images. Although the majority of WP:FPOs promoted last month had this feature, no current WP:FPOCs use this feature. He is in favor of converting the Chicago Portal in this manner using Portal:Chicago/Intro/Image. I have been against such a trend. We have debated on the portal talk page and our detailed opinions are there. In short, he thinks the feature adds dynamic artistic flair. I think that although the dynamic feature is good for giving variety in other sections of the portal, it is against the encyclopedic intent of the Portal because it does not introduce the portal to everyone in with the best summary. Does FPOC have a policy or do you as a director have an opinion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

woops
You're #19 and #73 here. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Rudget   (Help?) 15:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should change your signature to be bright red or something, you know, to avoid duplicate !voting. Oh, wait.... ;-)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * :) Trying to think of something snappy and intelligent, but fail miserably. Rudget   (Help?) 16:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fritzpoll's RfA
Hey Rudget. Anyways, for the answer, it's probably due to poorly worded writing on my part. I met both Keeper and Fritz at that AfD, although actually that AfD in particular was just a small thing, and for some reason decided to mention it in the nom. My following sentence "His AfD work is exactly what we should all strive to be doing; Fritzpoll does not just vote, he discusses, he tries to get at the core issues of notability and inclusion."... is what I meant to apply to most of his AfD word, not just Eve Carson. Anyways, just here to respond to your comment in regards to noms, of course your neutral vote is valid, I'm not responding to that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you repsonded to the neutral, at least that way I may get a different picture of the nominee. Don't get me wrong I know that Fritzpoll does have a civil manner, and is good with articles, plus he does have some particularly fine edits when it comes to terms of discussing (and even on one occasion, I saw he offered to do most of the work himself, which is, of course, admirable) but when it comes to experience, I just don't think its there. I feel that Fritz is too generalised, and doesn't really focus towards any individual part of the encyclopedia, apart from AfD. Which as we know, was, up until a couple of months ago, nearly a requirement from some for administratorship. So, to summarise what I mean Fritzpoll needs to do at least two things in my eyes: accept a nomination after a suitable time in which he may feel that they gained sufficient experience (I am surprised he did, to be honest) and to work more in depth in different areas; he seems okay with moves and so forth, so maybe helping out at requested moves (okay, admins do the work, but I know that others need help there), portal work, etc. etc. Remember these are only mere suggestions by a "neutraler", they are not mandatory and will probably not affect all those others who are involved in supporting, opposing, adding a neutral etc. Rudget  (Help?) 16:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm misunderstanding part of this Rudge: When it comes to general experience, I just don't think its there.  I feel that Fritz is too generalised, and doesn't realy focus towards any individual part of the encyclopedia contradicts itself.  Needs general experience, and also too generalised?  Help a guy out here, I'm just not seeing what you mean to say,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs more time. Apologies for the awful wording, I'm doing a dissertation. Rudget   (Help?) 16:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries friend. Do your schoolwork :)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The pitifall of those across the land: on another note, if we have more noms like this week, I may just have to call you "Keeperman", or perhaps even "Rudgeeper". :) Rudget   (Help?) 16:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, four at once. Sick, isn't it?  I just can't help myself...which reminds me, I saw your support on Malleus' RfA, and thought it was a very nice gesture of goodwill.  I was expecting to see you in the oppose section as I know you've had scrapes with him in the past.  Anyways, just wanted to let you know I noticed and saw it as a good thing. :)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, you probably helped anyway. Remember that truce thread you created? Rudget   (Help?) 16:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(response to Rudget) I see everything you are saying. If you have noticed my RfA participation, I also generally have very strict rules for my support. The thing about Fritz (and probably others) is that I likely see my editing style in line with his, and I hence trust it. That is, some editors will just never likely have the edit count of others. I think he reads things thoroughly, takes time to put together responses. I think that he thinks. His work in regards to crime notability shows thoughtful and deep interaction. I think many editors, I actually think many admins, might do the same thing in thrice the edits without the actual need to. I still see admins that don't understand 3RR, don't understand bans, don't understand a lot of core stuff, don't show civility or proper judgement. After reading virtually every RfA that has existed ran over the past 3 months, I've also come to learn that this won't likely stop, some candidates just get bandwagoning support early on and that's all she wrote. I've said in a few places, judgement is of utmost importance to me, and I believe Fritzpoll shows that he has it. Forget the "not abuse the tools" cliche - from what I see, it's likely this guy will help the project and I everywhere he goes he shows great civility and judgement. He messed up on that AfD... then immediately admitted embarassment at his mistake. When I say he shows great civility, I mean it, because most of the time I see that claim being thrown around on RfAs, many people for some reason ignore all the repeated examples of incivility. In my opinion, we promote too many candidates who have shown that they don't know policy yet... but they will make sure too as soon as they get the tools. It's just not the case with Fritz, I think if he stumbles on policy he'll be the first to admit it, but honestly he seems to have a good understanding of policy... because he reads it. To tell you the truth, it just comes down to whether or not such observations as mine can really be seen in what I admit is Fritz's somewhat limited activity on the project (comparatively). If I hadn't known him or how he's edited for the past few months, I might have opposes or gone neutral and basically asked him to wait and edit more, as you have done. RfAs are tough, but you know and I know, that each of us must go the way we think is best. In this case, you really needed to go neutral (I would actually say oppose) because you just weren't seeing the adminship qualities yet... and I respect that. OK I need some lunch now. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've hopefully responded to this on the RfA. My opinion is greatly expanded in the discussion section. Rudget   (Help?) 15:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read your comments there. Very well spoken. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. Threats
Actually Rudget, I would appreciate your honest feedback on whether my reinstatement of probation and block of Beamathan was adequate. Beamathan keeps insisting that I have a bias against him. For me, he's just a user who apparently cannot understand WP:CIVIL. For that only he was re-banned, re-blocked. Thank you. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Replying soon. Rudget   (Help?) 15:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection
I would like to ask that my userpage be unprotected now. I believe that it has been long enough and I would like it unprotected now. Cheers, Razorflame 16:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rudget   (Help?) 15:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to ask you again, but I would like to request that both my user talk page and talk page be protected from move vandals. Cheers, Razorfl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b> 15:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't protect anything, apart from your userpage, unless in cases where they are being targeted by numerous accounts. Rudget   (Help?) 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What I meant was page move. People moving my user talk page to other names.  Cheers, <b style="color:#6cf">Raz</b><b style="color:#6cc">or</b><b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b> 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, but only in times when the page is actually 'under attack' if you like. Rudget   (Help?) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll ask you again when it needs it.  Cheers, <b style="color:#6cf">Raz</b><b style="color:#6cc">or</b><b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b> 15:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A non-thankspam thank you
Hi Rudget! I appreciate the original !vote of confidence when you and Keep were first discussing the co-nom and thank you very much for your support in my successful RfA. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 14:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Good luck! Rudget   (Help?) 15:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Good luck with school and exams and what not. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI
You may want to revert this, as you seem involved in investigating. Best wishes, Qst (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta, I must admit, it is a little suspicious. Rudget   (Help?) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar...
Aww, thanks! :) I've found the noticeboards occasionally need a little lightening-up...and I'd rather be known for bizarre one-liners than for, say, ranting diatribes (glances over at the Betacommand threads and whistles)...Take care!!! Gladys J Cortez 18:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh
I see you've been caught by the bot too. :) Acalamari 19:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I say we team up against the bot. :) Rudget   (Help?) 19:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An excellent suggestion. :) Acalamari 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * *Boldly starts plotting ideas with the help of Acalamari*. Rudget   (Help?) 19:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm on IRC
You have new messages (last change.) Qst (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, do you think we should agree to each take the weight fairly? Its not really fair if I did all the small ones, or you did all te small ones; I think we should even it out fairly. Not that I'm suggesting I think you're going to do this, but it was just a suggestion. Qst (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind popping on IRC for ~5 mins? Qst (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Rudget   (Help?) 11:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: RFA
no that was intentional, they were all opposing for the same reason.-- Phoenix -  wiki  16:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey Rudget. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 18:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: RfA Co-nom
I'd be honored if you wanted to do this. As I mentioned to DHMO, I'll be working on this nom today when I can, but I'm training someone at work, so time is somewhat limited. Thank you so much. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ping on my talk page. Long of short; yes. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex
Would you mind taking a look at this? Some think the SSSIs should be redlinked too, and others that they should be unlinked. I'm im a bit of a jam here, as a lot of the town/village articles where the SSSIs are located don't exist, and as the SSSI articles themselves aren't notable, I'm kinda stuck. Your input would be appreciated. Cheers, Qst (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Closing featured portals nomination
When you closed this nomination, you don't need to add the colours and the boilerplate. A bot will do it for you. So from now on, all you need is remove the entry from the nomination page, add a notice to the bottom saying it's promoted, and transclude the page into that month's promoted/failed log. The bot will put on the appropriate colour. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right-o. I'll see to amend it to the FPOC page so I don't forget. Rudget   (Help?) 08:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And remember, place the latest archived nomination to the top of that month's log, not bottom. It's the norm for all featured contents archives. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 03:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

my RfA - Ta!



 * And thanks for the vote of confidence from me too! I appreciate the trust placed in me by you and others.--Slp1 (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Harrasment and Topic Ban
Hello Rudget. While you were studying, I was banned (again). For being "Uncivil."

Supposedly an edit summary where I said "Stay away" to User:Mike_Babic was uncivil. I was then immediately threatened by Husond. After I thought about it for 10 seconds, I decided that I should explain my actions to Mike_Babic incase he thought I was being Uncivil. I did this immediately, please see this. Husond did not apparently care. I was really bothered by Husond's immediate attack against me. I then asked Husond not to threaten me. In response he banned me for 48 hours! He was threatening me with a topic ban, when his first topic ban was unjustified, led by personal bias. I am now investigating ways that I can alleviate this situation via reporting his actions. In the meantime, I hope you will unban me. If you look at my recent edits I have been nothing but civil. And my 48 hour ban was preemptive by Husond, I think, so I couldn't immediately defend myself. I again point to this as evidence of my civility. I don't think it is fair that you are constantly bothered by Husond, and as a result than bothered by me about this bullshit (excuse my french). Your attention, per usual, is appreciated. I stress again that if you look at my edits to the Kosovo article I have been civil, even trying NOT to revert edits and instead addressing users directly prior to these edits. And at the Burma page, I was actually working with Husond. I even contacted him when a user was breaking 3RR and instead of edit warring, I planned on him taking care of it. See his his talk page as an example of my refined editing. I had taken your advice to heart, and want nothing more than to support your decision to revert his prior biased banning. I really don't want Husond to hate me, but I can't idly stand by and let him abuse me. Again, thank you. And if nothing else, can you instruct Husond not to take any action against me in the future? I'd appreciate that. Beam 18:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, just wanted to take the time to thank you for your participation AGAIN. It's getting quite tiresome. But, as usual, you're the man for standing up for me. Just a couple of things. Firstly, can you remove this topic ban from my "record" and from the arbcom record? To anyone who didn't know the details regarding Husond, it would like I'm quite an asshole, being banned multiple times for civility. Honestly, this whole Husond thing has dampened my future at Wikipedia. It's undeniable that any possible chance i had at adminship or even such things as Vandalfighting have been wrecked by one admin gone awry. Is there anything you can do to help me there? I'm not talking supporting me in some future event where my qualities come into question but as far as the record itself. Can you fix it? Thanks man, your time is valuable and I know this shit (excuse my french) is a waste of it. But you have helped me immensely, and without you and fut per who knows, I'd probably be perma banned. Beam 23:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Thanks for the offer and yes, I would appreciate it if you could add it. I've considered asking for it previously but I've never gotten around to asking. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --AussieLegend (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Tu parle francais aussi?
Because your Spanish is starting to get annoying! ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it was Deutsch last time.... :) Rudget   (Help?) 10:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That justifies it! :) (Gosh, I wish I could do better than fr-1 and ro-1...:( dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I love humour this early in the morning, it really does lighten up my day Rudget   (Help?) 10:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why I need tools now, please give me
I just posted this message to Pedro here. Not sure if you saw that or noticed this editor on your own. Times like this make me think an RfA a few months down the road might interest me more. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was flicking through recent changes before, and saw rollback of edits like this which were completely unnecessary. Hopefully he will learn from this and understand how to use it in the future if he is to regain the feature. Rudget   (Help?) 13:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, that was the edit that tipped me, then I reviewed his last 10 or so rollbacks, only 1 was vandalism related. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

While we are chatting, I have another admin-related Q. What if I see a userpage for a recently new editor, with this message on the front: "Hello. I am new! I created this account as a replacement to my old one (which was blocked indefinetly). I WONT VANDALIZE." What would be the first step? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Need to know the circumstances further, could you give a link? Rudget   (Help?) 13:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Sgt_Pikachu5 Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm.. I'm going to AGF on this one, lets see how it plays out and if there is any trouble later on, we can address it from there. Rudget   (Help?) 13:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, to sum up how I think you are looking at it... if it looks like a good faith attempt to start a new account, it's not neccesarily looked at as block evasion. On the other hand, if the new account was engaging in disruptive editing, the first block would likely be a indef as they had already advertised a previous indef blocked account. This correct? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the previous account was blocked indefinitely for, it could be any number of things, username violation perhaps. We can't necessarily take his "I won't vandalise" message to heart straight away (even though it is a pretty good message) - people have different definitions of vandalism. If the account stays within accordance to policy then there is nothing to worry about. If he doesn't we can block for block evasion (which, to my knowledge, is only really applicable when there are two or more current socks of the original account). Remember: If I block now, and the account is contributing okay, aside from a few dodgy CSD tags, we could have prevented a reasonable editor from continuing to contribute their knowledge. Something we must never do. Rudget   (Help?) 13:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like has something to do with this. I'll investigate further.  Rudget   (Help?) 13:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! re:barnstar
Thanks, just trying to help! With the influx of requests due to the SUL-doors being thrown open to everyone, it looks like CHU(/U) will need all the help it can get! Thanks again. <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;"> RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 18:32, May 27, 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Rudget. I think you may have responded right as I was adding the answers to the boilerplate questions above. If there is anything else you would like to know, please feel free to drop me a line. Take care, RFerreira (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take another look. Good luck, by the way! Rudget   (Help?) 18:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology
Forgive me for my mistaken use of rollback. I will pay more attention to my edits in the future, and make sure I understand the subtle nuances of Wikipedia's tools and the repercussions of incorrect use before I apply for rollback again. My apologies, J.T Pearson (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

New Focus at Unreferenced articles
The huge set of unreferenced articles from June of 2006 is finally completed. Thank you for your contributions. The new focus at Unreferenced articles is Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 which as of May 28 is only 1,322 articles and should go much quicker. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and listed themselves as a volunteer. Jeepday (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent comments at over 30 FLCs
I read each and every list that I provided feedback for. Yet you only nag me for the opposes, and not the supports. While I abhor your lack of assuming good faith, I don't see you nagging me for my support feedback. I READ EACH AND EVERY LIST. Now go and get a life. GreenJoe 12:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's difficult for one to get a life when 1) one already has one, 2) one is being personally attacked in all caps. Chill. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 13:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * DHMO, point #1 you made has to be the most cheesiest comeback I have ever ready in my life. Good work. ;-) Qst (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

SSSIs
Just to say I appreciate the improvements you (and Qst) are making to SSSI lists, especially the List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the West Midlands, and mentioning me in the nom despite my very minor contributions to that list! I will probably leave some comments at the FLC at some point but it looks very good. You also may be interested in this page where I tried to keep a record of how advanced each list is, it needs updating quite a bit at the moment, but feel free to update it, or move it to Wikispace, or ignore it! Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and no problem. Thanks for helping out and mentioning that the fact that the English Nature website was back up, otherwise I'd still be editing AIV or something :) Rudget   (Help?) 16:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What's your opinion on having a photo on the top left of the West Midlands list rather than the map? This is quite nice: Image:Longmoor Pool - Summer 2007.jpg! - Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maps seemed to be preferred in the Herts FLC, and I think they're more appropiate as well, to be honest. ;) Qst (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok no worries, if anyone brings up the question at FLC it can be debated then. Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

SSSIs
By the way, I would refrain from creating articles about individual SSSIs, they are non-notable. Just because Colin, who hasn't exactly been polite in yours and my FLC, wants you to create them, doesn't mean you should. :-) Qst (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thought I would anyway. :) Hopefully it'll be another FL. Rudget   (Help?) 18:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems now that people want us to create the articles about each SSSI, so maybe we should. I guess, contrary to my belief, that they are notable, as they have been the subject of reliable secondary sources. As long as ¾ of them are created per list, we should hav no problems with the FLCs. Qst (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already done so with the West Midlands list, and with the kind help of Suicidalhamster the prose is getting up to scratch as well. Rudget   (Help?) 10:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but its going to be harder on the bigger lists, which I'm working on. Qst (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. I'll try and think of a solution. Rudget   (Help?) 13:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that now people are requesting at least 2/3 of the articles for each individual SSSI be created, I'm thinking we should maybe work together on the big lists first, to get them out of the way. If not, maybe its easier to work together anyways so one person is not left to create a ton of stubs. Qst (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

cunt
You do realize that by supporting somebody who supported somebody who made a faux pas, you are supporting calling people cunts... er wait, let me check that logic again... yeah, that's what was said... anyways, ridiculous argument. But I did want to mention that while the opposes here are some of the lamest reasons I've seen, we need to be mindful that overly aggressive defenses can kill RfAs.Balloonman (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Balloonman, did you really just make that a subject header? Good gravy that's too funny... Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See Enigma's RfA.Balloonman (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I knew the reference. Been watching E-man's.  Some of the most outrageous opposes I've ever seen.  Just thought it was hilarious that you used that as a subject header. :-)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That was really my opinion. I just don't see how we can get "disruptive potential administrator" from signing a retirement page. Does that make the 100 or so who signed Newyorkbrad's all potential arbitrators? I think not. That was only part of the reason why Naerii opposed anyway, I respected the other half. Rudget   (Help?) 16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed... his opposes have been some of the more... lets assume good faith... creative. I've seen.Balloonman (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to ask this, not wanting to cause any drama, but what did East's oppose mean? "No more admins that are uninterested in content, please" Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Content" refers to articles, so by saying that East means he'd rather have admins who contribute heavily to articles. I disagree with that kind of blanket oppose, though: each to his own, and eventually someone will get it done. ;) · AndonicO  Engage. 16:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It means basically what AO says (shame I missed this before). It roughly 'translates' as meaning that the opposer is looking for more mainspace contributions which indicate a larger knowledge of articles, and therefore could, in theory, provide better assistance to those who are having problems there (this is probably the biggest thing the opposer thinks admins should do). Rudget   (Help?) 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not phrasing it well. I know what content means, rather, I don't understand this oppose, enigma had 3,500 mainspace contribs. What is the problem, specifically. Were they mostly huggle? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You can check the amount of automated edits using SQLs tool. Rudget   (Help?) 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk about a header! :) Qst (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All this talk about headers and cunts is rather disturbing! Think of the children! :) Rudget   (Help?) 16:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell that to WorldDailyNet. :) · AndonicO  Engage. 16:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

New thread for the sake of a new thread
Nothing to say really, just tired of seeing "cunt" on my watchlist. (don't read into that too much...) Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess Balloonman just loves me too much... Rudget   (Help?) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAOBalloonman (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Got some balloons to pop... Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Lord! What is that infernal racket! Oh how joyous! Rudget   (Help?) 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming administrators
Renaming an administrator is no problem. You might want to re-register the old account if you were afraid of being impersonated. Otherwise it works just like any other rename. &mdash; Dan | talk 18:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Jvolblum ban
At Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (6th) you stated you would consider requesting a ban soon, I am wondering if the time for that has come. I have just filed the 8th sockpuppetry case and the problem has continued unabated. In the last few days foursockpuppets have been active (,, , and ) and numerous open proxies. The problems have also continued including the insertion of copyrighted text (Earl C. Sams was deleted as copyvio and a paragraph of text was copied into Trinity-St. Paul's Episcopal Church (New Rochelle, New York)), the continued edits trying to remove information about the location of Sarah Lawrence College, the insertion of refs that are unreliable or do not metion what they are supposed to be supporting (in this edit a google search results page was used as a ref), removing tags without fixing the problem , and repeated removal of proper formating (in the both Wykagyl, New York   and City School District of New Rochelle   Jvolkblum removed ref tags). The use of open proxies means that Jvolkblum cannot be stopped through technical means. The enforcement of the ban through reversion of any edits made by Jvolkblum might have some effect in dissuading them from continuing to edit and would limit the damage they can cause. BlueAzure (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to go now. Will answer later. Apologies. Though, a ban does look likely. I'll try and prepare one. Rudget   (Help?) 13:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, there is no hurry. BlueAzure (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've requested a ban here. Rudget   (Help?) 15:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just blocked many socks at his recent RFCU. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 15:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find the ban thread...? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 15:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

AH, your link goes to ANI, but it's on AN. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

user violation claims
Good day - I am being accused of wrongdoings by another user (BlueAzure). I do not believe these claims are warranted. There appears to be a frequent amount of strange editing to a select group of articles that all come from supposed 'sockpuppets' and 'ip addresses' which are user anonymous, which in turn are all being attributed to one main user/abuser. So many of the changes are clearly contradictory to others that are supposedly tendencies or traits of this alleged abuser. It is confusing reading the detail surrounding this problem. I dont feel that I deserve to be brought into it because of what topic(S) I am interested in and want to contribute to. For all the site knows, this user BluAzure may be behind the anonymous activity being deiscussed, since he/she is the only truly consistant variable I can see. It isnt my desire to point fingers but it is not pleasant having to defend myself in this way. Thank You--EarthCleaner (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The user seems to be intent on limiting or eliminating information relevant to these articles. I feel that his/her request above to revert any edit associated with 'Jvolkblum' to be rather disconcerting due to the breadth of that users claims. I see many people contributing to the content of the wikipedia site however I do not see contributions coming from this user BlueAzure other than a fondness of deleting images and copyright information from the site. I respectfully request your help or advice on how to move forward from this problem. Thank You --EarthCleaner (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You've been blocked as a sockpuppet, confirmed by CU. That clears up any remaining doubt. Rudget   (Help?) 14:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cowboycaleb1
Thanks for blocking the sock. That brings the total of socks up to 31. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You in Year 11 too?!! :) D.M.N. (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just you, or the whole of your yeargroup? Good luck though, you'll need it. :)) D.M.N. (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia
I've given you a welcome message on the Simple English Wikipedia. I hope you might decide to edit there in the future. Cheers, <b style="color:#6cf">Raz</b><b style="color:#6cc">or</b><b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b> 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the "Simple English Wikipedia"? I consider myself pretty simple! Beam 01:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Earth sciences
Thank you very much for your support! Cheers, :) Sushant gupta (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Scots
So may I ax what that was all about please? Thank y.JeanLatore (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure. I saw the opening sentence, and prematurity got the better of me and I immediately rolled back, as it seemed more like an attack on Scottish people than an encyclopedic evaluation of the past's significance in 1707. I undid it however, as I re-read it. Please always make sure to cite your work, using the relevant templates. Regards, Rudget   (Help?) 17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou, but I did cite it. JeanLatore (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, you did. Rudget   (Help?) 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Exam
If you don't mind me asking, how did you find it? Mine was OK, I think I'll get a good grade overall. Did you find your paper easy or difficult? ;) D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll reply by email, as I don't prefer on-wiki socialising. :) Rudget   (Help?) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. ;)) D.M.N. (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Rudget, thank you again for your co-nom of my RfA. I am grateful to be given the opportunity to serve the Wiki community in a larger fashion, and wouldn't have gotten here were it not for your and DHMO's wonderful statements. Thanks again, I won't disappoint. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: It is finished --
Hi Rudget - thanks for the comment at my talk page. As I hope I made clear throughout, I genuinely respected your position on this RfA. Whilst I know that I felt ready for the mop, my feelings are not sufficient for the community to grant me without trust, and the tenure of a candidate can be significant in determining trust. Your comments have made me think, as have most of the opposes/neutrals and at the very least, I shall be even more careful in my early interactions with the tools than I might otherwise have been. I hope that, in a few months' time, I can assuage the doubts that you may still have. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk)