User talk:John254/Archive 12

My (Remember the dot)'s RfA
I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you so much for voicing your support in my successful RfA. I'm humbled to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! Spellcast 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankspam
  Thank you... ...for your participation, criticism, and support in my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final count of 90/1/1. I appreciate all of your kind words, criticism, and suggestions. I extend a special thanks to Acalamari for his nomination, and Dihydrogen Monoxide and Husond for their coaching and nominations. If you need help in any administrative matters, please contact me. Thank you again and, best regards, Neranei  This RfA thanks inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.

Quick question
Hi John! I noticed you removed a note left for Chris about the MfD nomination of Facebook, and I'm wondering why you removed the message to Chris? Note that the message was not a canvass asking for a particular opinion, but seemed to just be a courtesy note left to those editors who are listed on that page, who may be interested in knowing it was up for deletion. I think it would be best to reinstate the message, as Chris may indeed, be interested in knowing the information that was provided. If there are issues going on with regards to this that I'm unaware of, feel free to disregard this, of course. :o) Ariel ♥ Gold 03:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, lol. I just saw your comment at WP:ANI, and understand what you're doing. I have Chris' talk page on my watchlist, and did not realize this was a widespread thing as it does indeed, appear to be. Good catch on that! Sorry for my confusion. Ariel ♥ Gold 03:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Friendly notices
Which part of Canvassing do you not get? Let me guess; this one:
 * "Notifying all editors who substantively edited or discussed the article or project"
 * "Notifying all editors who substantively edited or discussed the article or project"

Please take time to review the whole policy page in its entirety. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 03:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Canvassing begins with the language "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors". Notifying hundreds of editors, as Ta bu shi da yu attempted to do, is clearly not embraced within this language.  Additionally, I note that Ta bu shi da yu was recently blocked for his disruptive canvassing. John254 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Ta bu shi da yu was not "Notifying all editors who substantively edited or discussed the article or project" -- instead, he was notifying all editors whose images were included in the project page in question, most of whom would reasonably be expected to support the retention of the page. Thus, it is doubtful that such notifications were "intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion", as Canvassing requires. John254 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've scrambled my password. However, good to see you NOT reading the guideline and reverting the edits. Way to go - your own bit of POV-pushing. - 211.30.71.131 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Howdy John254, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 05:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting others' talk pages
I realize he was canvassing, but I still don't think you should revert other users' talk pages (unless it's obvious vandalism).&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  05:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The use of rollback is an accepted practice in responding to clearly disruptive canvassing. John254 05:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolute and total nonsense. It wasn't disruptive at all -- it was welcome, in my case. -- phoebe/ (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I see this as unfair practice. --Cinik 07:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I might call it canvassing if the user was advocating a position. As it is, they're simply informing interested persons that a deletion is pending, something that the people calling for deletion routinely decline to do. Far too many pages here at Wikipedia simply disappear, snuck away by someone who thinks they ought to be deleted without providing fair notice tothe community.


 * Atlant 12:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardess of whether he was canvassing or not, please do not revert other people's talkpages. I am perfecty capable of policing my own talkpage, thank you very much. I will view any further such actions on my talkpage as vandalism. Arkady Rose 14:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that you have reverted an edit to my talk page without providing any explanation. Please do not do so (atleast, I request you not to do so on my talk page) unless the edit(s) being reverted is obvious vandalism. Thank you. aJC freak y A <font color="#FF6600">k  16:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards -- Herby talk thyme 12:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting my talk page
It is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE that you deleted someone else's comment off of my talk page. It is for me to decide what messages I want to see, not you -- there is absolutely no justification for your action. Don't touch my talk page, please. -- phoebe/ (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And just so we're clear, I could care less that he was canvassing. Unless it is blatant Viagra spam -- and maybe not even then -- I prefer to take care of my talk page myself. That is a common courtesy "rule" on Wikipedia that has been true for a very long time. I welcome any message from a Wikipedian, no matter why they left it. Thanks. -- phoebe/ (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have come here with the same complaint. Why did you delete comments from my talk page? The comment you deleted was a perfectly valid one. Cnwb (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You have done the same to my talk page, and it is most unwelcome. Please, check the guideline for this. What you have done is gross violation of the civility policies. Instead of removing the post from my talk page without my permission, you could have draw attention of the posting editor to appropriate guidelines. Sorry to be rude, but what you have done is pretty wrong. I hope you understand. Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

General response to concerns raised about rollback of canvassing by
The reversion of disruptive canvassing is not intended to be for the benefit of the users canvassed. It is intended to minimize the effects of the canvassing, and is a common practice in dealing with clearly disruptive canvassing. The blocking of Ta bu shi da yu by Nat reflects an administrative judgment that the notices constituted disruptive canvassing. Unfortunately, it appears that the rollback of Ta bu shi da yu's canvassing did not actually minimize its effects, but instead only drew further attention to the notices. A more effective means of reversing canvassing might be to delete the affected talk pages, then restore all revisions of the talk pages except those containing the canvassing, and those that were deleted prior to the canvassing. This method would effectively expunge the canvassing from the affected talk pages. John254 17:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not so much a methodology question as the fact that your judgment that something needed to be done about the canvassing at all is what's off base here. His notices were welcome for at least some of us. Numbers (10 versus 1000) don't matter in this situation -- there were a whole lot of people affected by the Facebook pages, more than with most community pages or articles. Thus more notices are appropriate. Please don't ever think that you have the right to delete and recreate people's talk pages just to get rid of something you think is inappropriate. If I ever feel such drastic measures are needed, I'll ask for them. -- phoebe/ (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 's canvassing was inappropriate because it had the effect of biasing the outcome of the MFD discussion: he only contacted users whose pictures were featured on the project page in question, who were quite likely to support retention of the page. However much it may be insisted that "MFD is not a vote", quantitative considerations will affect the outcome of an MFD discussion, especially since there are few objective policy-based standards for the inclusion of project pages (unlike AFD, which is controlled, to some extent, by the general notability guideline and other content policies and guidelines.)  If Ta bu shi da yu believed that the MFD discussion was receiving insufficient publicity, he should have posted a notice concerning it in a neutral location, such as Administrators' noticeboard or Village pump (miscellaneous), rather than only contacting users who he had good reason to believe would support keeping the page.  Also, there is little functional difference between blocking Ta bu shi da yu to prevent him from posting more notices, and the deletion of the notices that he had already posted from the history of the affected talk pages. John254 22:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)