User talk:Herostratus/Archive 1



quiz
You might want to consider putting User:Herostratus/pedo quiz result up for deletion, as reading it in the absence of the picture it refers to is immensely frustrating! Either that, or let us know where we can see the picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.3 (talk • contribs).

Signpost updated for June 12th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 01:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
I was surprised to notice that you weren't already an admin. I just looked over your last 250 contributions, and I was very impressed with your dedication to WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. I think you can be trusted with the sysop tools, and I would be honored to nominate you for adminship if you're interested. What do you say? -- Tantalum Telluride 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks. Herostratus 03:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well then. As I always say, if you need a template to tell you how to accept an RfA, you're not ready for adminship. So, here's your RfA subpage: Requests for adminship/Herostratus. Now go do your thing. Good luck! -- Tantalum Telluride 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Having previously noted the concordance on the RfA page, I must observe that your responses are uncannily similar in spirit (if better written) than those I'd have offered/will soon offer. There are, it seems to me, three eminently plausible explanations: (a) you copied the answers from the subpage at which I'd already crafted them (notwithstanding that no such page exists); (b) you and I are similarly inclined with respect to adminship (viz., we are of the belief that admins ought to be deliberate, pensive, and restrained, recognizing themselves as fallible), likely because great/severely mentally ill minds such as ours think alike; (c) having been impressed with your responses (and the positive reaction thereby engendered), I have decided to pretend that you and I think alike in order that I might soon succeed at RfA and then implement WP:REALLY EVIL.  In all seriousness, it is quite pleasing to find a prospective admin who isn't inclined to stop his/her article work (or isn't overly eager for adminship) and who will surely use the tools properly, self-effacingly, decorously, and, perhaps most importantly, jovially.  Joe 05:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanx Joe. LOL WP:REALLY EVIL, let's go for it.Herostratus
 * Re: this&mdash;That's probably because that paticular "line" was drawn in dry sand on a windy day. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA bug
Thanks for pointing that out. A few days back I overhauled that part of the analysis, but forgot to add && sum_value=1 to condition of being "minor" or "major". As for your notable edits, I carefully looked through your ~5000 edits and didn't find any mistakes as per how the tool seperates out edits (copyedits count as "small"). Thanks. Voice -of- All  19:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When you run the tool, its says FAQ, however when I copy-past it no longer appears as a link. You can access it here. "Notable" edits, as the examples on the RfAs, say they are usually major rewrites or creation. Click here to see an example of a user with an above (far far...) average value for that.


 * At any rate, whats with not warning vandals? You already explained (to my agreement) the other issues, so this is really the only reason I am still opposing... Voice -of- All  02:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia
A bit of a drive by message... have you ever tried out Uncyclopedia? Your vandal poem made me laugh, so I thought I'd point you towards one of the other places I like to edit. It would be good to see you there. -- sannse (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps too blunt?
Suggestion. #2 on your list. Perhaps too blunt? I see trouble from some of your crtics. Funny thing, probably not him though! FYI. He is the patron saint of the Wikipidia rouge administrator cabal which you will be promptly inducted into when nom passes. FloNight talk  01:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a Wiki. Consider editing it out. Also, look for an email from me in the next little bit. FloNight talk  04:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
I see you have a "AAAA!" userbox. It might interest you to know that I made a template:. If you don't want to change yours, that's fine. It's always nice to know that someone else appreciates the "batshit insane" humor on Uncyclopedia. Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 22:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Aaa message to Mr. Lefty
Sorry about that, it looked a lot like vandalism. I've reverted your message back so all should be well again. Thanks for the congratulations on my succesful RfA. Good luck with yours. Gwernol 01:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
You're now an admin. Please spend some time reflecting on the points that were raised in opposition to your candidacy to the extent that you can use them to be a better editor and asset to the project. Review policy before taking action, and it's always a good idea to be conservative with the admin tools. Specifically, there are precious few cases where undoing other admin's actions are urgent, so reflect, discuss and gather consensus as needed. I expect that you'll do great as evidenced by the maturity you displayed in your candidacy, but don't make me look bad :). Have fun, and don't hesitate to ask if you need anything. - Taxman Talk 11:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. May you wield the bucket and mop well. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratualtions! Now, I'm going to pester you more often! ;) Yanksox (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whew, a long seven days! Your good humor pulled you through. Many people could not deal with some the more strongly worded oppose votes. FloNight   talk  13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! The whole discussion kept me right on the edge of my seat (figuratively, though, since I'm sitting on the floor). Joyous! | Talk 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations and good luck with the mop, bucket, and flame-proof underwear. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations Herostratus! --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats! I thought you might not make it for a while there. -- Tantalum Telluride 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't go creating any havoc now! Congrats, you have certainly earned it. --DanielCD 03:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much to all of you for your kind words! I've been away and not able to respond until now. I appreciated your kindness. Herostratus 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Squidward

 * Sigh* I guess he hasn't been doing the vandalbot attacks, he's just been doing steady crappy editing while ignoring consensus and POV pushing, while calling everyone who disagrees with him a vandal. I'm frankly sick of him. I'm not sure Tawker is wrong though. Cheers, Mak (talk)  00:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am being attacked by a group of users; I request that an Administrator talk to them
They are making unfounded attaacks and accusations against me. As show here for example.[]. The user who made this also did not sign which put together with an anoymous comment is not a good sign. I would like to know on what grounds user:Baku87 and user:Grandmaster are making these claims. I have never made any negative comments on contributions. They continue to make these claims without any proof. 69.196.164.190

Here is more examples; Once, again can he please provide proof for these claims, especially the anti-Azari statments he keeps claiming I made???

The user:Grandmaster iscontinuing to make unfounded accusations and attacks against me. As shown here. I left him a polite warning, but noticed that this has been a discourse of behaviour and that he has been warned for uncivil behaviour in the past. I told him once on his talk page to be polite and keep all comments directed towards edits and that he has no right to make such accusations and additionally no grounds; I said I will let it pass as a warning and act in good faith and consider it an honest mistake on his part. But after looking at his talk page and contributions I have noticed he is making accusations to other editors about me and is still continuing to do so as you can see above. Any comment I make on a talk page is labelled POV and attacked right away? It is automatically lablled anti-Azari! I have no idea how saying every human being is equal and that we are all brothers and sisters is bad or anti-Azari? These comments are groundless, uncivil and simple attacks.

Can you please talk to him as an administrator. I do not appreciate this harassment. Like I have said, I am not here to fight, I am here to edit and to enjoy editing. User:Grandmaster continues to accused me of being anti-Azari when I myself am a Azari!? I do not know what makes him an authority to make such attacks or conclusions? He is basing some of his rationale on articles I have edited and continuing to claim I am another user, which is okay as long as it is civil, but it is not civil these wrong assertions are expressed through actually uncivil attacks. I would like him to stop making uncivil comments about me to other users and on article talk pages. Can you please get him to provide proof about the anti-Azari statments I have made! I am pretty sure I would be blocked if I made any anti-anything statments! It is easy to make such assertions, but can he provide proof before attacking my name on talk pages?

His claims does not make personal attacks legitmate or okay nor do they allow uncivil behaviour. He continues to make them and say I am anti-Azari! I do not appreciate this type of trolling and personal attacks. Regards 69.196.164.190

Nice work on child sexuality. JayW 16:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)